BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Paper, entitled The Report of the Iraq Inquiry, dated 6 July 2016, and a Return of a Paper, entitled The Report of the Iraq Inquiry: Executive Summary, dated 6 July 2016.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Referendum

Nicholas Dakin: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the economy in Scotland over the next five years of the outcome of the EU referendum.

Ian Murray: What assessment he has made of the effect on the economy in Scotland of the outcome of the EU referendum.

David Mundell: The Scottish economy faces a number of challenges as a result of the vote to leave the EU. Yesterday I began a process of direct engagement with Scottish business leaders to ensure that their voice is heard in the forthcoming negotiations.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Now that the Brexit decision has been made, does he think that it will be easier for the Scottish and UK Governments to support the Scottish steel industry in tackling things like energy costs, procurement and business rates?

David Mundell: Regardless of the vote, the two Governments must continue to work together to support the industry. The Scottish Government have taken steps in relation to the two plants in Scotland, very much supported by me and the Scotland Office and the UK Government. We will continue that support, and the Scottish Government will play a part in the steel council that has been established.

Ian Murray: Standard Life, one of the largest private employers in Scotland, ceased trading in its UK property fund this week, and the Governor of the Bank of England has said that the consequences of Brexit are beginning to crystallise. Given that financial services are 7% of Scotland’s GDP and employ tens of thousands of my constituents, what reassurances was the Secretary of State able to give businesses yesterday that not one job will be lost because of the Conservative gamble with this country?

David Mundell: May I begin by commending the hon. Gentleman for his service as shadow Scottish Secretary? No one knows better than me how difficult it is to be your party’s sole representative from Scotland in this House and be shadow Scottish Secretary. He performed the role with great distinction, and I am particularly grateful for his work to ensure the passage of the Scotland Act 2016 in this place. He will be pleased to know that when I met business leaders yesterday Standard Life was represented. One point that its representatives made, which is important for discussions on the future of the Scottish economy, is how important the market outwith Europe is, as well as the market within Europe. Standard Life did not wish us to lose focus on the many business opportunities it pursues, in north America in particular.

Bob Blackman: When will my right hon. Friend lay out the exciting opportunities there are for Scotland as a result of leaving the European Union for the wider world?

David Mundell: Obviously when I met Scottish businesses I wanted them to address the opportunities for business. I have just referred to a leading Scottish company with significant interests outwith the EU, but businesses in Scotland are naturally concerned to understand the arrangements that will be put in place for our future relationship with the EU.

Angus Robertson: In Scotland more than 62% of voters voted to remain in the European Union. Since then the Scottish Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to support First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in her efforts to protect Scotland’s place in Europe. That was voted for by the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green party. The Tories abstained. Will the Secretary of State finally join the cross-party consensus to protect our economy and our place in Europe, or will he abstain like his colleagues?

David Mundell: The right hon. Gentleman omits one fact. My colleagues were unable to support his party’s motion because the SNP would not take the toxic and divisive issue of a second independence referendum off the table. Anyone who wants to unify opinion in Scotland does not start talking about a second Scottish independence referendum. I hope the First Minister was listening yesterday to Scottish businesses when they said decisively in relation to discussions about the EU that they did not want to hear about Scottish independence.

Angus Robertson: Tens of thousands of European Union citizens play a massive role in our economy and society in Scotland. The Scottish National party wants  to do more than just pay tribute to them; we want them to have guarantees that they can stay in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State act in the Scottish and European interest, and guarantee the rights of fellow EU citizens to remain in Scotland, and end the intolerable worry and concern with which they are being confronted?

David Mundell: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view of the important role that EU citizens play in Scotland, and we want them to stay in Scotland and have their position guaranteed. We also want British citizens in the rest of Europe to have their right to stay there guaranteed, and I hope that it will be possible to issue both guarantees.

David Anderson: May I start by echoing the compliments paid to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)? He will be a hard act to follow.
Sitting opposite the Secretary of State reminds me of the many good times that I have spent in his constituency in the great town of Moffat. Friends of mine from Moffat, John and Heather, live on the Old Carlisle Road where they have a small family farm and a business. They want to know what guarantees have been given about the future of payments that they receive as part of the common agricultural policy, and what benefit they can expect from the £350 million a week that senior members of the Government promised we would get back from the European Union to fund the NHS. How much of that can we expect to go to Scotland and, crucially, when can we expect to see it?

David Mundell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position, and he is welcome in Moffat any time he wants. I have performed his role in the past, but when I did so there were 41 Scottish MPs opposite me, and 15 months later it has come to this. CAP payments will be subject to negotiations, and as someone who argued for a remain vote, I made it clear to farmers in Scotland that there would be a degree of uncertainty if there was a vote to leave. As a result of our withdrawal from the EU, responsibility for agricultural matters will now rest directly with the Scotland Parliament.

David Anderson: I do not think that John and Heather will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s response, and I note that he did not answer my question on the NHS.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee was right yesterday to accuse our hapless Prime Minister of being guilty of a dereliction of duty for failing to set up withdrawal planning units until after the referendum. Will someone please tell the Prime Minister that the words to the song are not: “When the going gets tough, the tough do a runner”? With that in mind, does the Secretary of State believe that the Prime Minister’s policy of placating fruitcakes and loonies has been a price worth paying for the economic crisis that is now upon us, and the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom?

David Mundell: I am a democrat. I respect the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom, and that decision will be implemented.

Andrew Stephenson: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the outcome of the EU referendum.

Martyn Day: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on Scotland.

Ian Blackford: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on Scotland.

Chris Green: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the outcome of the EU referendum.

Alan Brown: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on Scotland.

David Mundell: Since the outcome of the EU referendum, both the Prime Minister and I have had discussions with Scottish Government Ministers, and we will continue to do so over the coming weeks and months. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will fully involve the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations as we prepare for negotiations with the European Union.

Andrew Stephenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should respect the outcome of the democratic process, even if some do not agree with the result?

David Mundell: I am clear that the majority of people across the United Kingdom voted for the UK to leave the European Union, and that decision must be implemented. In doing so, we must secure the best possible deal for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Martyn Day: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the UK Government’s intention to invite the Scottish Government to participate directly in the EU negotiations?

David Mundell: I confirm that the Scottish Government will be at the heart of the negotiation process. I can also confirm today that I and my Cabinet colleague my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who is responsible for the European unit within the Government, will be meeting the First Minister next week to discuss how that might be achieved.

Ian Blackford: The Secretary of State says he is a democrat. Will he support the long-established position in Scotland that sovereignty rests with the people? Now that the Parliament has said that we wish to negotiate Scotland’s remaining in the single market, will he stand up for those rights? Is he Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, or is he, as we suspect, the Cabinet’s man in Scotland?

David Mundell: I expect slightly more original lines from the hon. Gentleman. My position is clear: I very much welcome any initiative pursued by the First Minister  or by the Scottish Government that can be to the benefit of Scotland without being to the detriment of the rest of the United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing from the First Minister when I meet her next week how the various initiatives she is pursuing are going. We want to work together. Businesses in Scotland yesterday made it very clear that they want a Team  UK approach: the Scottish Government and the UK Government working in tandem in the best interests of Scotland.

Chris Green: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as the Scottish referendum was binding for a generation, so too is the United Kingdom’s decision on the European Union? Is it not incumbent for all politicians, including those in the devolved Administrations, to now come together to make this work?

David Mundell: I very much hope that that will be the case. I met Fiona Hyslop, the Minister responsible in the Scottish Government, within hours of the EU declaration being made. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in Scotland today. I am meeting Fiona Hyslop tomorrow, and, as I have already said, I am meeting the First Minister next week. We want to work as closely as we can with the devolved Administrations to get the best outcome for Scotland.

Alan Brown: On the previous question, I would point out that Scotland voted by a large majority to remain in the EU. As a self-confessed democrat, will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that he will support the Scottish Government’s efforts to find a mechanism to keep Scotland in the European Union?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman may not have read the ballot paper, but the question was not about Scottish independence. It was about whether voters in Scotland wanted the United Kingdom to remain in the EU. I was a part of the 1.6 million people in Scotland who voted to remain in the EU, but I did not do so on the basis that Scotland would then be dragged out of the United Kingdom if I did not get the decision I wanted.

Henry Smith: With over 1 million people in Scotland voting to leave the European Union last month, what is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the rush for a second independence referendum on the Union?

David Mundell: It is important that we respect the views of people we do not agree with. It has become evident that the Scottish National party cannot respect the views of the 2 million people who voted to remain in the United Kingdom in the 2014 referendum and it does not respect the people who voted to leave the EU. I do not agree with the people who voted to leave, but their views need to be respected.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: In the light of statements made by the Secretary of State for Justice and the new shadow Secretary of State for Scotland over the weekend, will the Secretary of State for Scotland give us an unequivocal confirmation  that the Barnett formula will not be changed or affected as a result of the EU referendum and that Scotland’s budget will be protected?

David Mundell: The Government were elected on a manifesto that made it clear there would be no changes to the Barnett formula. The hon. Lady has been in several political parties over her political career. Perhaps she noticed earlier this week that there is a vacancy at the head of the UK Independence party; that might be her next destination.

Sheryll Murray: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what discussions he has had on the possibility of Scotland having to accept joining the euro if, as it claims, it wants to stay in the European Union?

David Mundell: Clearly the parameters have changed, and if any proposition were put forward for any prospective further independence referendum, it would be carried out on an entirely different basis from what we had with the 2014 proposition, and membership of the euro might well be part of that.

Wayne David: A close relationship between Scotland and the European Union is obviously in the best interests of Scotland. Has the Secretary of State any specific suggestions about how that relationship might be made real in the future?

David Mundell: I think I have set out clearly how I see the way forward on these matters, and it lies with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working as closely as they possibly can together. That is the way we will get the best possible arrangements for Scotland. The message from business leaders I met yesterday was that we need a Team UK approach to get that deal for Scotland.



Helen Hayes: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Ministers of the Scottish Government on the devolution and implementation of social security powers.

David Mundell: I am committed to working with the Scottish Government to ensure a safe and secure transfer of welfare powers. I met Scottish Ministers in the joint ministerial working group on welfare on 16 June. We had a constructive meeting and issued a joint communiqué about our discussions.

Helen Hayes: What assurances can the Secretary of State give that Scotland will be no worse off with the devolution of new social security powers?

David Mundell: I certainly hope that individuals in Scotland will be no worse off. Inevitably, the devolution of these powers means that specific decisions about their use will be made by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. The amount of certain payments and their shape and nature will be matters for them.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Will the Secretary of State update us on discussions on the devolution of the social fund funeral payments?

David Mundell: I am hoping to move forward with a commencement order for those powers before this Parliament goes into recess. That effectively means the transfer of the arrangements to the Scottish Government.

Margaret Ferrier: I have asked the Scottish Secretary twice via written questions when he last visited a food bank. The answer has been the same on both occasions—he has not visited a food bank in his capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland. Will he therefore today agree to visit a food bank with me in my constituency so that he can see at first hand the devastating effect of Tory sanctions and welfare policies?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady is very well aware that I have visited a food bank and understand the issues that surround them.

David Anderson: The agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government set out exactly how the new Scottish welfare budget will be agreed. Will the Secretary of State explain what would happen in the event of the UK Government abolishing a specific benefit that has been devolved to Scotland? In that circumstance, will the Scottish Government retain the budget or will they lose it?

David Mundell: The financial arrangements for the transfer of powers were dealt with in the fiscal framework, and that circumstance was contemplated in it. There are two sets of benefits that are subject to transfer: one is a set of benefits for which the Scottish Government will have full responsibility and can therefore shape and make a new benefit or change benefits; and the other set involves powers to top-up existing UK benefits. Clearly, if an existing UK benefit did not exist, the power to top it up would not exist either, but the power to create an equivalent might well do.

Womenomics Report

Alistair Carmichael: What progress the Government are making on implementing the recommendations of the Womenomics report on the role and contribution of women in the Scottish economy, published in March 2015; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for commissioning the Sawers report. The Government have published their response, and, following the elections in May, a ministerial group is being put together from all the Administrations in the United Kingdom—it will include my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice—so that we can begin to make progress. Meanwhile, the gender pay gap is diminishing to an all-time record low.

Alistair Carmichael: As we tackle the economic challenges that face Scotland as a result of Brexit, removing barriers to the full economic contribution of women to Scotland’s economy becomes more important than ever. Professor Sawers’ report offers the Government a road map. Will the Minister ensure that someone in the Scotland Office blows the dust off it, and implements some of the very good, solid recommendations that it contains?

Anna Soubry: As I have said, the report is very good, and it is critical for everyone to work together. The Scottish Parliament now has more devolved powers specifically to address the problems of gender equality, which, of course, includes any disadvantage for women.

Steel Industry

Tom Pursglove: What assessment he has made of the future prospects for the steel industry in Scotland.

Anna Soubry: I was delighted to be present at the Dalzell plant in April for the handover of that plant and Clydebridge from Tata to the Liberty Group. I think that if we continue the excellent process of working together, the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland must be good, and I am going to be positive about its future.

Tom Pursglove: I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. What discussions is she having with the First Minister and with other Departments to ensure that the Scottish steel industry receives all the help and support that it needs?

Anna Soubry: We work together hand in glove, which I think is very important. It is also important to note that the Steel Council which the Government established contains a number of representatives of both the Scottish and the Welsh Governments. Together, we can ensure that throughout the United Kingdom we have a strong and sustainable steel industry.

Peter Bone: Brexit will be helpful to the British steel industry, including the steel industry in Scotland. It was a good day when we came out. Will the Minister welcome it?

Anna Soubry: What I will say is this: I think that we must all work together now, however we voted and whatever our views, to ensure that we do the very best for our country. We should be under no illusions about the fact that we face some very big challenges and some very difficult months and years, not just days. What is important now is coming together and putting the past behind us.

Public Procurement: Small Businesses

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to work with the Scottish Government on ensuring that more public procurement is directed towards small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry: Procurement has been an important part of the Government’s work. We are determined to deliver our target of central Departments spending 33% of their budgets with small and medium-sized enterprises by 2020. The last set of results showed that we were increasing the proportion to 27.1%.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that rather than setting specific percentage targets for small business procurement, the Scottish Government should follow best practices in counties such as Norfolk, and also work in close co-operation with the United Kingdom Government?

Anna Soubry: The short answer—I know you enjoy those, Mr Speaker—is an emphatic yes.

North Sea Gas and Oil Industry

Alan Mak: What steps the Government are taking to support the North sea oil and gas industry.

Anna Soubry: In the 2015 Budget, the Government introduced a £1.3 billion package of tax measures to help our oil and gas industry. Today I am launching the inter-ministerial group’s oil and gas workforce plan, which sets out how we can retain talent in this sector and opportunities for workers in other sectors.

Alan Mak: The North sea oil and gas industry supports a range of supply chain partners, including businesses on the south coast. Will the Minister continue to support those businesses as they diversify by exporting their expertise?

Anna Soubry: Yes, because we fully understand the difficulties in the oil and gas sector at the moment. That is why we have launched this plan. By working together we can improve the lot, but these are difficult times for the oil and gas sector.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak), who posed the question succinctly but comprehensively, and to the Minister for succinctly but comprehensively answering it, so that it is now time for Prime Minister’s questions.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Chloe Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 July.

David Cameron: I know the whole House will want to join me in wishing Wales luck ahead of the Euro 2016 semi-final this evening. They have played superbly and we wish them all the best.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Chloe Smith: I am a Conservative because I believe it is not where you are coming from, it is where you are going that counts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity to succeed no matter what your background is what we want for Britain?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Making sure that all our citizens have life chances to make the most of their talents should be the driving mission for the rest of this Parliament. Yesterday at Cabinet we were discussing the importance of boosting the National Citizen Service, which will play a key role in giving young people the confidence and life skills to make the most of the talents that they undoubtedly have.

Jeremy Corbyn: I think today it would be appropriate if we paused for a moment to think of those people who lost their lives in the bombings in Baghdad and Medina in recent days—the people who have suffered and their families at the end of Ramadan; it must be a terrible experience for them, and I think we should send our sympathies and solidarity to them.
I join the Prime Minister in wishing Wales well, and I will be cheering for Wales along with everybody else. It is quiet, isn’t it. [Interruption.] Ah, there is life after all.
Thirty years ago the Shirebrook colliery employed thousands of workers in skilled, well-paid unionised jobs digging coal. Today thousands of people work on the same site, the vast majority on zero-hours contracts, with no union recognition, where the minimum wage is not even paid. Does Shirebrook not sum up “Agency Britain”?

David Cameron: First, let me join the Leader of the Opposition in giving our sympathies and condolences to all those who have been the victims of these appalling terrorist attacks, as he says in Baghdad and Medina, and also in Istanbul.
On the issue of what has happened in our coalfield communities in order to see new jobs and new investment, we have made sure that there is not only a minimum wage, but now a national living wage. The Leader of the Opposition talks about one colliery. I very recently visited the site of the Grimethorpe colliery; there is now one business there—ASOS, I think—employing almost 5,000 people. We are never going to succeed as a country if we try to hold on to the jobs of industries that have become uncompetitive; we have got to invest in the industries of the future, and that is what this Government are doing.

Jeremy Corbyn: The problem is that if someone is on a zero-hours contract, the minimum wage does not add up to a living weekly wage; the Prime Minister must understand that. May I take him north-east of Shirebrook to the Lindsey oil refinery? In 2009, hundreds of oil workers there walked out on strike because agency workers from Italy and Portugal were brought in on lower wages to do the same job. Just down the road in Boston, low pay is endemic. The average hourly wage across the whole country is £13.33. In the east midlands, it is £12.26; in Boston, it is £9.13. Is it not time that the Government intervened to step up for those communities that feel they have been left behind in modern Britain?

David Cameron: We have intervened with the national living wage. We have intervened with more fines against companies which do not pay the minimum wage. We have intervened, and for the first time—this is something Labour never did—we are naming and shaming the companies involved. Those interventions help and can make a difference, but the real intervention that we need is an economy that is growing and encouraging investment, because we want the industries of the future. That is what can be seen in our country and that is why record numbers are in work—2.5 million more people have a job since I become Prime Minister—and why the British economy has been one of the strongest in the G7.

Jeremy Corbyn: This Government promised that they would rebalance our economy. They promised a northern powerhouse, yet half of 1% of infrastructure investment is going to the north-east and London is getting 44 times more than that. Is it not time to have a real rebalancing of our economy and to invest in the areas that are losing out so badly?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is talking down the performance of parts of our economy that are doing well. The fastest growing part of our economy has been the north-west, not the south-east. Exports are growing faster in the north-east, not in London. There is a huge amount of work to do to make sure that we heal that north-south divide, and for the first time we have a Government with a proper strategy of investing in the infrastructure and the training and the skills that will make a difference. For years, regional policy was about just trying to distribute a few Government jobs outside London. We now have a strategy that is about skills, training and growth, and it is delivering.

Jeremy Corbyn: The idea of redistribution is interesting, because investment in London is more than the total of every other English region combined. Does the Prime Minister not think that such issues should be addressed? In March, Government investment was cut in order to meet their fiscal rule. How can the economy be rebalanced when investment is cut and when what little investment remains reinforces the regional imbalances in this country?

David Cameron: Again, I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking down the north in the questions that he asks. The unemployment rate in the north-west is lower than the rate in London, so I think his figures are wrong.
As for investment, we of course need to have Government investment, and we have that in HS2 and the railways. We have the biggest investment programme since Victorian times and the biggest investment in our roads since the 1970s, but we can invest only if we have a strong, growing economy. We know what Labour’s recipe is: more borrowing, more spending, more debt, and trashing the economy, which is what they did in office. That is when investment collapses.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Chancellor finally did this week what the shadow Chancellor asked him to do in the autumn statement and what I asked the Prime Minister to do last week—he abandoned a key part of the fiscal rule. The deficit was supposed to vanish by 2015, but we now know it will not even be gone by 2020. Is it not time  to admit that austerity is a failure and that the way forward is to invest in infrastructure, in growth and in jobs?

David Cameron: What the right hon. Gentleman says is simply not the case. The rules that we set out always had flexibilities in case growth did not turn out the way it did. I would take his advice more seriously if I could think of a single spending reduction that he supported at any time in the past six years. The fact is that this Government and the previous one—the coalition Government—had to take difficult decisions to get our deficit under control. It has gone from the 11% of GDP that we inherited—almost the biggest in the world—to under 3% this year and that is because of difficult decisions. If he can stand up and tell me about one of those decisions that he has supported, I would be interested to hear it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Concerns about the fiscal rule and investment are obviously spreading on the Prime Minister’s own Benches. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have seen the light and now agree with the shadow Chancellor about backing the massive investment programme that we have been advocating. Is it not time that the Prime Minister thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for the education work that he has been doing in this House? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Chancellor’s fiscal rule is dead and that he will invest in the north-east, in Lincolnshire, and in Derbyshire? They are all places that feel, with good reason, that they have been left behind and that investment is going to the wrong places. They are ending up with few jobs on low wages and insecure employment to boot.

David Cameron: If the investment was going to the wrong places, we would not see 2.5 million more people in work and we would not see a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment in every single region in our country.
The only area where I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a massive contribution is in recent weeks coming up with the biggest job-creation scheme that I have ever seen in my life. Almost everyone on the Benches behind him has had an opportunity to serve on the Opposition Front Bench. Rather like those old job-creation schemes, however, it has been a bit of a revolving door. They get a job—sometimes for only a few hours—and then they go back to the Back Benches, but it is a job-creation scheme none the less and we should thank him for that.

John Glen: On a day when significant questions have been levelled at the collective decision making of politicians, military leaders and intelligence services, many of our constituents will be seeking reassurance that the lives of their loved ones were not given in vain, and that the mistakes that were made will never happen again. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the lessons learned will be fully examined and acted upon so that the tragic mistakes made over a decade ago can never be repeated?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I can certainly give that assurance. I am sure that we will have plenty of time this afternoon to discuss the Chilcot report. Sir John Chilcot is on his  feet at the moment explaining what he has found. I think that the most important thing we can do is really learn the lessons for the future, and he has laid out the lessons quite clearly. We will obviously want to spend a lot of time talking about the decision to go to war and all the rest of it, but I think that the most important thing for all of us is to think, “How do we make sure that Government work better, that decisions are arrived at better, and that legal advice is considered better?” I think that all those things are perhaps the best legacy we can seek from this whole thing.

Angus Robertson: Today is hugely important for Muslims, both at home and abroad, as it is the end of Ramadan, and I am sure we wish them all Eid Mubarak. Today is also a day when our thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones in Iraq and all those hundreds of thousands of families in Iraq who also mourn their loved ones. The Chilcot report confirms that on 28 July 2002 Tony Blair wrote to President Bush, stating:
“I will be with you, whatever”.
Does the Prime Minister understand why the families of the dead and the injured UK service personnel and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis feel that they were deceived about the reasons for going to war in Iraq?

David Cameron: First, I join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Muslims in this country and around the world Eid Mubarak at the end of Ramadan. We will discuss the report in detail later and I do not want to pre-empt all the things I am going to say in my statement, but clearly we need to learn the lessons of the report, so we should study it very carefully—it is millions of words and thousands of pages. I think that we should save our remarks for when we debate it in the House following the statement.

Angus Robertson: The Chilcot report catalogues the failures in planning for post-conflict Iraq and then concludes that:
“The UK did not achieve its objectives”.
That lack of planning has also been evident in relation to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and, most recently, with no plan whatsoever, to Brexit. When will the UK Government actually start learning from the mistakes of the past so that we are not condemned to repeating them in future?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that what Sir John Chilcot says about the failure to plan is very clear. In the statement that he has given, he says:
“When the invasion began, UK policy rested on an assumption that there would be a well-executed US-led and UN-authorised operation in a relatively benign security environment.
Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance.”
He then says:
“We do not agree that hindsight is required.”
Sir John Chilcot is very clear on that point.
What I will say to the right hon. Gentleman about planning is that the things I put in place as Prime Minister following what happened in Iraq—a National Security Council, proper legal advice, properly constituted  meetings and a properly staffed National Security Secretariat, including proper listening to expert advice in the National Security Council—were all designed to avoid the problems that the Government had had in the case of Iraq. The only other point I will make is that there is no set of arrangements or plans that can provide perfection in any of these cases. We can argue whether military intervention is ever justified; I believe that it is. Military intervention is always difficult, as is planning for the aftermath. I do not think that we in this House should be naive in any way about there being a perfect set of plans or arrangements that could solve these problems in perpetuity, because there is not.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Southend Council, which is once again under the control of the Conservative party, on swiftly acting to sort out the mess left by the previous, hopeless administration? Does he agree that Southend-on-Sea being the alternative city of culture next year will produce a considerable boost to the local economy?

David Cameron: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his long-standing efforts to promote Southend and all it has to offer. Although Hull is the official city of culture next year, I am sure that Southend will benefit from the tireless campaign that he has run. I certainly join him in encouraging people to go and see this excellent seaside town for themselves.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, two miles north of Shirebrook, which has already been mentioned, is a town called Bolsover and that, at the same time as local people were seeing notices on the bus saying, “£350 million for the NHS”, the Government decided, with the help of the local people, to close the hospital at Bolsover? We need the beds—I am sure that he understands that. When the hospital is closed, it is gone forever. I want him today to use a little bit of that money—not very much—to save the Bolsover hospital, save the beds and save the jobs. The press might have a headline saying, “The Prime Minister—Dodgy Dave—assists the Beast to save the Bolsover hospital.” What a temptation!  Save it!

David Cameron: I do not have the information about the exact situation at the Bolsover hospital; I will look at it very carefully and write to the hon. Gentleman. What I will say is that we are putting £19 billion extra into the NHS in this Parliament. As for what was on the side of buses and all the rest of it, my argument has always been, and will always be, that it is a strong economy that we require to fund the NHS.

Seema Kennedy: Last week, I held my first apprenticeships fair in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that apprenticeships are an absolutely vital part of economic development in our proud northern towns and cities?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have set the target of 3 million apprentices during this Parliament. I think that is achievable, just as we achieved the 2 million apprentices trained  during the last Parliament. I wish her well with what I hope is the first of many apprenticeship fairs in her constituency.

Yasmin Qureshi: Before I ask my question, may I thank the Prime Minister for the support he gave my campaign to get an inquiry into a drug called Primodos, which was given to pregnant women in the 1960s and ’70s and resulted in thousands of babies being born with deformities?

John Bercow: Order. I need a single-sentence question. Forgive me, but there are a lot of other colleagues who want to take part.

Yasmin Qureshi: What assurances can the Prime Minister give that, in the light of the fact that we are now out of the European Union, that money will be safe?

David Cameron: First, let me thank the hon. Lady for her thanks. She has raised the case of Primodos many times. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has been gathering evidence for a review by an expert working group on medicines, and it has met on three occasions. I think we are making progress.
On universities, until Britain leaves the European Union, we get the full amount of funding under Horizon and other programmes, as we would expect. All contracts under them have to be fulfilled, but it will be for a future Government, as they negotiate the exit from the EU, to make sure that we domestically continue to fund our universities in a way that makes sure that they continue to lead the world.

Kevin Foster: As my right hon. Friend will know, the potential closure of the BHS store in Torquay town centre with the loss of more than 100 jobs has again raised the need for major regeneration of town centres across Torbay. Will he outline what support will be made available by the Government to ensure that plans can be taken forward?

David Cameron: First, it is worth making the point that it is a very sad moment for those BHS staff who have worked so long for that business. For them, it was not simply a high street brand; it was a job, a way of life and a means of preparing for their retirement and their pensions, and we must do all we can to help them and find them new work. There are many vacancies in the retail sector, and we must ensure that there is help for them to get those jobs. As for our high streets, we have put around £18 million into towns through a number of initiatives, and we should keep up those initiatives, because keeping our town centres vibrant is so vital. This sits alongside the biggest ever cut in business rates in England—worth some £6.7 billion in the next five years—and we need to say to those on our high streets that they should make the most of that business rate cut.

Mhairi Black: One of my constituents who I have been working with for some time has had her mobility car removed after falling victim to a flawed personal independence payment assessment by Atos. After the involvement of my office, Atos has since admitted  its error, yet my vulnerable constituent still remains housebound and without a suitable car. Will the Prime Minister offer his full assistance to rectify this cruel situation, and will he look again at the regulations that allowed this situation to occur in the first place?

David Cameron: Let me congratulate the hon. Lady on taking up this constituency case. Many of us have done exactly the same thing with constituents who have had assessments that have not turned out to be accurate. If she gives me the details, I will certainly look at the specific case and see what can be done.

Kevin Hollinrake: A report recently commissioned by Transport for the North, a body created by this Government, highlights the opportunity to halt the growing divide between north and south and to create 850,000 new jobs and £97 billion of economic growth by 2050. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to build on our economic prosperity, we need to continue to rebalance infrastructure spending from London to the regions, particularly to the north of England?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The report shows that, if we do not take the necessary actions, we will see a continued north-south divide, which is why we are committed, for instance, to seeing increased spending on transport infrastructure go up by 50% to £61 billion in this Parliament. In his area, for example, we are spending £380 million on upgrading the A1 from Leeming to Barton, which will be a big boost for the local economy.

Chris Law: I recently met Yemi, whose husband, Andy Tsege, a British citizen, has been on Ethiopia’s death row for over two years. Andy was kidnapped while travelling and illegally rendered to Ethiopia. He was sentenced to death six years ago at a trial that he was neither present at nor able to present any defence whatsoever to, in direct contravention of international law. He has been denied access to his wife and children, has spent a year in solitary confinement and has had no access to legal representation. Recent reports suggest that he is suicidal. Prime Minister, in your final weeks in office, will you finally demand the immediate release of Andy Tsege and bring him home to be reunited with his wife and children?

David Cameron: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking a very close interest in this case. The Foreign Secretary was in Ethiopia recently. Our consul has been able to meet Mr Tsege on a number of occasions and we are working with him and with the Ethiopian Government to try to get this resolved.

David Burrowes: One report that perhaps will not get so much attention is the Care Quality Commission’s report into North Middlesex University hospital, which confirms that the emergency  care there is inadequate. Why has it taken so many years and why does it need regulators to tell us what many of my constituents know: for too long, there has been inadequate care and too few doctors and consultants? Will the Prime Minister assure me that we now have in place the right plans and the right numbers of doctors and consultants to ensure that my constituents get the care that they deserve?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that the CQC is now acting effectively at getting into hospitals, finding bad practice and reporting on it swiftly. In some cases, that bad practice has always been there, but we have not been as effective as we should have been at shining a light on it. North Middlesex University hospital has one of the busiest emergency departments in the country. Its practice was unacceptable. We now have a new clinical director at the trust, additional senior doctors in place at A&E and a change in governance. Under this Government, we set up the role of the chief inspector of hospitals, to have a zero-tolerance approach to such practice and to ensure that things are put right.

Martyn Day: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has stated that he wants the UK to borrow tens of billions of pounds to create a Growing Britain fund worth up to £100 billion. Is this a formal plan, or is it merely an attempt to conjure up a plan amid a leadership vacuum in the UK Government?

David Cameron: We are spending billions of pounds on the British economy and on investment, as I have just shown, and that has clear consequences under the Barnett formula for Scotland. Clearly, my colleagues, during a leadership election—at least we on this side of the House are actually having a leadership election, rather than the never-ending—[Interruption.] I thought you wanted one? You don’t? Hands up who wants a leadership election. [Laughter.] Oh, they don’t want  a leadership election! I am so confused: one minute it is like the eagle is going to swoop, and the next minute it is Eddie the Eagle at the top of the ski jump not knowing whether to go or not. Anyway, in case you hadn’t noticed, we are having a leadership election.

Robin Walker: Right from the start, this United Kingdom has been an outward looking international trading nation. I am glad to see that the Trade Minister, Lord Price—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for Worcester is entitled to be heard and his constituents are entitled to be represented.

Robin Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to see the Minister for Trade and Investment out in Hong Kong today talking up the prospects for investment in the British economy, but what steps can the Prime Minister take to bolster the resources available to UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign Office to make sure we attract as much trade and investment in the wide world as possible?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A clear instruction has gone out to all our embassies around the world and to UKTI, and Ministers are very clear that we should be doing all we can to   engage as hard as we can with other parts of the world and to start to think about those trade and investment deals and the inward investment we want in the UK. Businesses have been clear to us as well: whether they agree or disagree with the decision the country has made, they know we have to go on and make the most of the opportunities that we have.

Rachel Reeves: With the real prospect of a recession on the horizon, the offer from the Chancellor is to cut corporation tax, yet companies worry whether they will make a profit in the UK, not how much tax they will pay on it. Can the Prime Minister tell us what immediate action his Government will take to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods right now?

David Cameron: Immediate action has been taken, not least the Bank of England decision to encourage bank lending by changing the reserve asset ratios it insists on. That is important because it is a short-term measure that can have some early effect. The Chancellor was talking about how we need to make sure that we configure all our policies to take advantage of the situation we are going to be in. That means changes to taxes and the way UKTI works, and a change in focus for the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We can make a start on all those things, irrespective of the fact that the hon. Lady and I were on the same side of the referendum campaign.

Gerald Howarth: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) about UKTI, may I remind the Prime Minister that next Monday the greatest airshow in the world takes place at Farnborough in my constituency, which all right hon. and hon. Members are expected to attend? Last time, two years ago, deals worth $201 billion were signed at the Farnborough airshow, so may I prevail on my right hon. Friend, who may have a little more time on his hands, to come and open the show on Monday and encourage all other Ministers to attend?

David Cameron: I am one of the first Prime Ministers in a while to attend the Farnborough airshow and I am happy to announce that I will be going back there this year, because it is very important. We have, I think, the second-largest aerospace industry in the world after the United States, and it is a brilliant moment to showcase that industry to the rest of the world and to clinch some important export deals, both in the military and in the civilian space. I will always do everything I can, whether in this job or in the future, to support British industry in that way.

Alison Thewliss: The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recently joined the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in expressing serious concerns about this Tory Government’s brutal welfare cuts. How much more international condemnation will it take before the Prime Minister drops his regressive two-child policy and scraps his rape clause?

David Cameron: What we have seen under this Government is many more people in work, many fewer households where no one works, and many fewer  households with children where no one works; all those have been a huge success. Of course, the hon. Lady and her party have an opportunity, now that we have made some huge devolution proposals, including in the area of welfare: if they do not think that what we are doing on a UK basis—[Interruption.] I do not know why you are all shouting. You are getting these powers; instead of whinging endlessly, you ought to be starting to use them.

Mike Wood: As Sir John Chilcot finds that the only people who came out of the 2003 invasion of Iraq well were servicemen and civilians, will the Prime Minister look at how he can make sure that the precedent that he set last autumn for transparency and scrutiny ahead of military action becomes the norm for his successor?

David Cameron: I think we have now got a set of arrangements and conventions that put the country in a stronger position. I think it is now a clear convention that we have a vote in this House, which of course we did on Iraq, before premeditated military action, but it is also important that we have a properly constituted National Security Council, proper receipt of legal advice and a summary of that legal advice provided to the House of Commons, as we did in the case of both Libya and Iraq. These things are growing to be a set of conventions that will work for our country, but let me  repeat that even the best rules and conventions in the world do not mean that we will always be confronted with easy decisions, or ones that do not have very difficult consequences.

Margaret Ferrier: The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware of my constituent Pauline Cafferkey, a nurse who contracted Ebola in Sierra Leone in 2014, when she was there as part of the response that the Department for International Development organised to the outbreak. She and around 200 other NHS volunteers acting through UK-Med have not received an equivalent to the £4,000 bonus awarded to 250 Public Health England staff. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to discuss how DFID can rectify that?

David Cameron: I am very pleased that the hon. Lady raises this issue, because Pauline Cafferkey is one of the bravest people I have ever met, and it was a great privilege to have her come to No. 10 Downing Street.  I am proud of the fact that she—and many others, I believe—have received a medal for working in Sierra Leone, which is something Britain should be incredibly proud of. We took the decision to partner with that country to deal with Ebola, and it is now Ebola-free. I will look specifically into the issue of the bonus—I was not aware of it—and I will get back to the hon. Lady about it.

REPORT OF THE IRAQ INQUIRY

David Cameron: This morning, Sir John Chilcot has published the report of the independent Iraq inquiry. This is a difficult day for all the families of those who lost loved ones. They have waited for this report for too long, and our first thoughts today must be with them. In their grief and anger, I hope they can draw at least some solace from the depth and rigour of this report and, above all, some comfort from knowing that we will never forget the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons, daughters, husbands and wives—179 British servicemen and women and 23 British civilians who gave everything for our country. We must also never forget the thousands more who suffered life-changing injuries, and we must pledge today to look after them for the rest of their lives.
This report would have been produced sooner if it had been begun when Conservative Members and others first called for it back in 2006, but I am sure that the House will join me in thanking Sir John and his Privy Counsellors, including the late Sir Martin Gilbert, who sadly passed away during the work on this report.
This has been a fully independent inquiry. Government Ministers did not even see it until yesterday morning. The Cabinet Secretary led a process that gave Sir John full access to Government papers. This has meant an unprecedented public declassification of Joint Intelligence Committee papers, key Cabinet minutes, records of meetings and conversations between the UK Prime Minister and the American President, and 31 personal memos from the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to President George W. Bush. The inquiry also took evidence from more than 150 witnesses, and its report runs to 2.6 million words, in 13 volumes. It cost over £10 million to produce. Clearly the House will want the chance to study and debate it in depth, and I am making provision for two full days of debate next week.
There are a number of key questions that are rightly asked about Iraq. Did we go to war on a false premise? Were decisions taken properly, including the consideration of legal advice? Was the operation properly planned? Were we properly prepared for the aftermath of the initial conflict? Did our forces have adequate funding and equipment? I will try to summarise the key findings on these questions before turning to the lessons that I believe should be learned.
A number of reasons were put forward for going to war in Iraq, including the danger that Saddam posed  to his people and to the region, and the need to uphold United Nations resolutions. However, as everyone in this House will remember, central to the Government’s case was the issue of weapons of mass destruction.  Sir John finds that there was an “ingrained belief” genuinely held in both the UK and US Governments that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological capabilities, and that he wanted to redevelop his nuclear capabilities and was pursuing an active policy of deceit and concealment.
There were some good reasons for this belief. Saddam had built up chemical weapons in the past and he had used them against Kurdish civilians and the Iranian military. He had given international weapons inspectors the run-around for years. The report clearly reflects that  the advice given to the Government by the intelligence and policy community was that Saddam did indeed continue to possess and seek to develop these capabilities.
However, as we now know, by 2003 this long-held belief no longer reflected the reality. Sir John says:
“At no stage was the proposition that Iraq might no longer have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified and examined by either the”
Joint Intelligence Committee
“or the policy community.”
And as the report notes, the late Robin Cook had shown that it was possible to come to a different conclusion from an examination of the same intelligence.
In the wake of 9/11, the Americans were also understandably concerned about the risk of weapons of mass destruction finding their way into the hands of terrorists. Sir John finds that while it was reasonable to be concerned about the potential fusion of proliferation and terrorism, there was
“no basis in the JIC Assessments to suggest that Iraq itself represented such a threat.”
On the question of intelligence, Sir John finds no evidence that intelligence was improperly included, or that No. 10—or Mr Blair personally—improperly influenced the text of the September 2002 dossier, but he does find that the use of Joint Intelligence Committee material in public presentation did not make clear enough the limitations or the subtleties of assessment. He says that the assessed intelligence
“had not established beyond doubt either that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued”,
and he says that the Joint Intelligence Committee
“should have made that clear to Mr Blair.”
Sir John also finds that public statements from the Government conveyed more certainty than the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments. There was a lack of clarity about the distinction between what the JIC assessed and what Mr Blair believed. Referring to the text in Mr Blair’s foreword to the September 2002 dossier, he finds
“a distinction between”
Mr Blair’s
“beliefs and the JIC’s actual judgements.”
But in his words Sir John does not question Mr Blair’s belief or his legitimate role in advocating Government policy.
Turning to the question of legality, the inquiry has “not expressed a view as to whether or not the UK’s participation in the war was legal.” However, it does quote the legal advice which the Attorney General gave at the time and on which the Government acted—namely, that there was a legal basis for action. Nevertheless, Sir John is highly critical of the processes by which the legal advice was arrived at and discussed. He says:
“The circumstances in which it was ultimately decided that there was a legal basis for UK participation were far from satisfactory.”
I am sure hon. Members will want to study that part of the report carefully.
Sir John also finds that the diplomatic options had not at that stage been exhausted, and that
“Military action was therefore not a last resort.”
Sir John says that when the second resolution at the UN became unachievable, the UK should have done more to exhaust all diplomatic options, including allowing the inspectors longer to complete their job.
Turning to the decision making, the report documents carefully the processes that were followed. There was a Cabinet discussion before the decision to go to war. A number of Ministers, including the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, were involved in much of the decision making. However, the report makes some specific criticisms of the process of decision making. In particular, when it came to the options for military action, it is clear that these were never discussed properly by a Cabinet Committee or Cabinet. Arrangements were often informal and sporadic, and frequently involved a small group of Ministers and advisers, sometimes without formal records.
Sir John finds that at crucial points, Mr Blair sent personal notes and made important commitments to Mr Bush that had not been discussed or agreed with Cabinet colleagues. However, while Sir John makes many criticisms of process, including the way information was handled and presented, at no stage does he explicitly say that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
Turning to operational planning, the initial invasion proceeded relatively rapidly, and we should be proud of what our armed forces managed to achieve so quickly. This was despite the fact that the military did not really have time to plan properly for an invasion from the south, because they had been focused on the north until a late decision from the Turkish Government to refuse entry through their territory. It was also in spite of issues over equipment, which I will turn to later.
But a bigger question was around the planning for what might happen after the initial operation, and we mentioned this briefly at Prime Minister’s questions. Sir John finds that
“when the invasion began, the UK government was not in a position to conclude that satisfactory plans had been drawn up and preparations made to meet known post-conflict challenges and risks in Iraq.”
He adds that the Government
“lacked clear Ministerial oversight of post-conflict strategy, planning and preparation and effective co-ordination between government departments”
and
“failed to analyse or manage those risks adequately.”
The Government—and here I mean officials and the military, as well as Ministers—remained too fixed on assumptions that the Americans had a plan, that the UN would play a significant role, with the international community sharing the burden, and that the UK role would be over three to four months after the conflict had ended. Sir John concludes that the Government’s failure to prepare properly for the aftermath of the conflict
“reduced the likelihood of achieving the UK’s strategic objectives in Iraq.”
And Sir John concludes that anticipating these post-conflict problems—and I quote, as I did at Prime Minister’s questions—
“did not require the benefit of hindsight.”
Turning to equipment and troops, Sir John is clear that the UK failed to match resources to the objectives. Sir John says categorically that
“delays in providing adequate medium weight Protected Patrol Vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces...for ISTAR and helicopters should not have been tolerated”,
and he says:
“the MOD was slow in responding to the developing threat in Iraq from Improvised Explosive Devices.”
The inquiry also identified a number of moments when it would have been possible to conduct a substantial reappraisal of our approach to the whole situation in Iraq and the level of resources required. But despite a series of warnings from commanders in the field, Sir John finds that no such reappraisal took place. Furthermore, during the first four years, there was
“no clear statement of policy setting out the acceptable level of risk to UK forces and who was responsible for managing that risk.”
Sir John also finds that the Government—and in particular the military—were too focused on withdrawing from Iraq and planning for an Afghan deployment in 2006, and that further drew effort away.
Sir John concludes that although Tony Blair succeeded in persuading America to go back to the UN in 2002, he was unsuccessful in changing the US position on other critical decisions, and that
“in the absence of a majority in the Security Council in support of military action at that point, the UK was undermining the authority of the Security Council”.
While it is right for a UK Prime Minister to weigh up carefully the damage to the special relationship that would be done by failing to support the US, Sir John says that it is questionable whether not participating militarily on this occasion would have broken the partnership. He says there was a substantial gap from the outset between the ambitious UK objectives and the resources that Government were prepared to commit, and that even with more resources, the circumstances surrounding the invasion made it difficult to deliver substantive outcomes.
While the territorial integrity of Iraq remained, deep sectarian divisions opened, and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians lost their lives. While these divisions were not created by the international coalition, Sir John believes they were exacerbated, including through the extent of de-Ba’athification, and they were not addressed by an effective programme of reconciliation. Overall, Sir John finds that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government fell far short of meeting its strategic objectives and helped to create a space for al-Qaeda.
Of course, the decision to go to war came to a vote in this House, and Members on all sides who voted for military action will have to take our fair share of the responsibility. We cannot turn the clock back, but we can ensure that lessons are learned and acted on. I will turn to these in a moment and cover all the issues around machinery of government, proper processes, culture and planning, some of which we discussed in Prime Minister’s questions, but let me be the first to say that getting all of these things right does not guarantee the success of a military intervention.
For example, on Libya, I believe it was right to intervene to stop Gaddafi slaughtering his people. In that case, we did have a United Nations Security Council  resolution. We did have proper processes. We did have comprehensive advice on all the key issues. And we did not put our forces on the ground. Instead we worked with a transitional Libyan Government. But getting these things right does not make the challenges of intervention any less formidable. The difficulties in Libya are plain for everyone to see today.
As the Prime Minister for the last six years, reading this report, I believe there are some lessons that we do need to learn and, frankly, keep on learning. First, taking the country to war should always be a last resort and should only be done if all credible alternatives have been exhausted.
Secondly, the machinery of government does matter. That is why, on my first day in office, I established the National Security Council to ensure proper co-ordinated decision making across the whole of government, including those responsible for domestic security. This council is not just a meeting of Ministers; it has the right breadth of expertise in the room, with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of the intelligence services, and relevant senior officials. The Attorney General is now a member of the National Security Council.
I also appointed the UK’s first national security adviser, with a properly constituted team in the Cabinet Office to ensure that all the key parts of our national security apparatus are joined up. The national security machinery also taps the experience and knowledge of experts from outside Government. This helps us to constantly challenge conventional wisdom within the system and avoid, hopefully, group-think. It is inconceivable today that we could take a premeditated decision to commit combat troops without a full and challenging discussion in the National Security Council, on the basis of full papers, including written legal advice, prepared and stress-tested by all relevant departments, with decisions formally minuted.
Thirdly, I would argue also that the culture established by Prime Ministers matters too. It is crucial to good decision making that a Prime Minister establishes a climate in which it is safe for officials and other experts to challenge existing policy and question the views of Ministers, and the Prime Minister, without fear or favour. There is no question today but that everyone sat around the NSC table is genuinely free to speak their mind.
Fourthly, if we are to take the difficult decisions to intervene in other countries, proper planning for what follows is vital. We know that the task of rebuilding effective governance is enormous. That is why we created a conflict, stability and stabilisation fund, and beefed up the cross-government stabilisation unit, so that experts are able to deploy in post-conflict situations anywhere in the world at short notice. Frankly, none of this would be possible without the historic decision that we have taken to commit 0.7% of our gross national income on overseas aid. A lot of that money is spent on conflict-affected and fragile states, not only assisting with post-conflict planning but also trying to prevent conflicts in the first place.
Fifthly, we must ensure that our armed forces are always properly equipped and resourced. That is why we now conduct a regular strategic defence and security review to ensure that the resources we have meet  the ambitions of the national security strategy. We are  meeting our NATO commitment to spend 2% of our GDP on defence, and planning to invest at least £178 billion on new military equipment over the next decade. We have also enshrined the armed forces covenant in law to ensure that our armed forces and their families receive the treatment and respect they deserve. Sending our brave troops on to the battlefield without the right equipment was unacceptable, and whatever else we learn from this conflict, we must all pledge that this will never happen again.
There will be further lessons to learn from studying this report, and I commit today that that is exactly what we will do, but in reflecting on this report, and my own experience, there are also some lessons here that I do not think we should draw. First, it would be wrong to conclude that we should not stand with our American allies when our common security interests are threatened. We must never be afraid to speak frankly and honestly, as best friends always should. And where we commit our troops together, there must be a structure through which our views can be properly conveyed and any differences worked through. But it remains the case that Britain and America share the same fundamental values, that Britain has no greater friend or ally in the world than America, and that our partnership remains as important for our security and prosperity today as it has ever been.
Secondly, I think it would be wrong to conclude that we cannot rely on the judgments of our brilliant and hard-working intelligence agencies. We know the debt we owe them in helping to keep us safe every day of the year. Since November 2014, they have enabled us to foil seven different planned terrorist attacks on the streets of the UK. What this report shows is that there needs to be a proper separation between the process of assessing intelligence and the policy making that flows from it. And as a result of the reforms since the Butler report, that is what we have in place.
Thirdly, it would be completely wrong to conclude that our military is not capable of intervening successfully around the world. Many of the failures in this report were not directly about the conduct of the armed forces as they went into Iraq, but rather the failures of planning before a shot was fired. There is no question but that Britain’s armed forces remain the envy of the world, and the decisions we have taken to ensure that they are properly resourced will ensure they stay that way.
Finally, we should not conclude that intervention is always wrong. There are unquestionably times when it is right to intervene, as this country did successfully in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. I am sure that many in this House would agree that there have been times in the recent past when we should have intervened but did not, such as in failing to prevent the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica.
Intervention is hard. War fighting is not always the most difficult part. Often, the state-building that follows is a much more complex challenge. We should not be naive to think that just because we have the best prepared plans, in the real world things cannot go wrong. Equally, just because intervention is difficult, it does not mean that there are not times when it is right and necessary.
Yes, Britain has to, and will continue to, learn the lessons of this report. But as with our intervention against Daesh in Iraq and Syria today, Britain must not  and will not shrink from its role on the world stage or fail to protect its people. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: Before addressing the issues raised in the Iraq inquiry report, I would like to remember and honour the 179 British servicemen and women who were killed and the thousands maimed and injured during the Iraq war, and their families, as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of the invasion and occupation launched by the US and British Governments 13 years ago.
Yesterday, I had a private meeting with some of the families of the British dead, as I have continued to do over the past dozen years. It is always a humbling experience to witness the resolve and resilience of those families and their unwavering commitment to seek truth and justice for those who they lost in Iraq. They have waited seven years for Sir John Chilcot’s report. It was right that the inquiry heard evidence from such a wide range of people and that the origins, conduct and aftermath of the war were examined in such detail. However, the extraordinary length of time that it has taken for the report to see the light of day is, frankly, clearly a matter of regret.
I should add that the scale of the report, running to 6,275 pages, to which I was given access only at 8 o’clock this morning, means that today’s response, by all of us, can only be a provisional one.
The decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British Government in modern times. It divided this House and set the Government of the day against a majority of the British people, as well as against the weight of global opinion. As Sir John Chilcot says, the war was not in any way a “last resort”. Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext, as the inquiry accepts, and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. As the report indicates, the occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad that killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been, for many, a catastrophe.
The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 on the basis of what the Chilcot report calls “flawed intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction has had a far-reaching impact on us all. It has led to a fundamental breakdown in trust in politics and in our institutions of government. The tragedy is that while the governing class got it so horrifically wrong, many of our people actually got it right. On 15 February 2003, 1.5 million people here, spanning the entire political spectrum, and tens of millions of others across the world, marched against the impending war. That was the biggest demonstration in British history.
It was not that those of us who opposed the war underestimated the brutality or the crimes of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Indeed, many of us campaigned against the Iraqi regime during its most bloody period, when the British Government and the US Administration were supporting that regime, as was confirmed by the 1996 Scott inquiry. But we could see that this state, broken by sanctions and war, posed no military threat, and that the WMD evidence was flimsy and confected. We could see that going to war without United Nations’ authorisation was profoundly dangerous, and that foreign invasion and occupation would be resisted by force, and would set off a series of uncontrollable and destructive events.
If only this House had been able to listen to the wisdom of many of our own people when it voted on 18 March 2003 against waiting for UN authorisation for a second resolution, the course of events might have been different. All but 16 Members of the official Opposition at that time supported the war, while many in my party voted against it, as did others in other opposition parties. There are Members here today on all Benches, including dozens of my Labour colleagues, who voted against the war. But none of us should take any satisfaction from this report. [Interruption.] Instead, I believe that all of us—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We cannot have a running commentary on the statements made from the Front Bench. Members of this House know me well enough to know that I will allow all opinions to be expressed. If that means that the Prime Minister has to be here for quite a long time, he is accustomed to that. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard with courtesy. If people want to witter away, they should leave the Chamber. It is boring and we do not need you.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We have to be saddened at what has been revealed, and we must now reflect on it. In addition to all those British servicepeople and Iraqis, civilians and combatants, who lost their lives in the conflict, many members of this House who voted to stop the war have not lived to see themselves vindicated by this report. First and foremost, it would do us well to remember Robin Cook, who stood over there, 13 years ago, and said in a few hundred words, in advance of the tragedy to come, what has been confirmed by this report in more than 2 million words.
The Chilcot report has rightly dug deep into the litany of failures of planning for the occupation, and the calamitous decision to stand down the Iraqi army and to dissolve the entire Iraqi state as a process of de-Ba’athification. However, the reality is that it was the original decision, to follow the US President into this war in the most volatile region of the world and impose a colonial-style occupation, that led to every other disaster. The Government’s September 2002 dossier, with its claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes, was only the most notorious of many deceptions. As Major General Michael Laurie told the inquiry:
“We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence”.
Military action in Iraq not only turned a humanitarian crisis into a disaster, but it also convulsed the entire region, just as intervention in Libya in 2011 has sadly left the country in the grip of warring militias and terror groups. The Iraq war increased the threat of terrorism in our own country, as Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, made clear to the inquiry.
There are many lessons that need to be drawn from the Iraq war and the investigation carried out by Sir John Chilcot in his inquiry; lessons for our Government, our country and this Parliament, as well as for my party and every other party. They include the need for a more open and independent relationship with the United States, and for a foreign policy based on upholding international law and the authority of the United Nations, which always seeks peaceful solutions to international disputes. We also need, and the Prime Minister indicated this, much stronger oversight of security and intelligence services. We need the full restoration of proper Cabinet government and to give Parliament the decisive say over any future decisions to go to war—based on objective information, not just through Government discretion but through a war powers Act, which I hope this Parliament will pass. As, in the wake of Iraq, our own Government and other western Governments increasingly resort to hybrid warfare based on the use of drones and special forces, our democracy crucially needs to ensure that their use is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
There are no more important decisions a Member of Parliament ever gets asked to make than those relating to peace and war. The very least that Members of Parliament and the country should be able to expect is rigorous and objective evidence on which to base their crucial decisions. We now know that the House was misled in the run-up to the war, and the House must now decide how to deal with it 13 years later, just as all those who took the decisions laid bare in the Chilcot report must face up to the consequences of their actions, whatever they may be.
Later today, I will be meeting a group of families of military servicemen and women who lost loved ones, as well as Iraq war veterans and Iraqi citizens who have lost family members as a result of the war that the US and British Governments launched in 2003. I will be discussing with them, our public and the Iraqi people the decisions taken by our then Government that led the country into war, with terrible consequences.
Quite bluntly, there are huge lessons for every single one of us here today. We make decisions that have consequences that go on not just for the immediate years, but for decades and decades afterwards. We need to reflect very seriously before we take any decisions again to take military action. We should realise that the consequences of those decisions will live with all of us for many decades to come, and will often be incalculable.

David Cameron: Let me briefly respond to that, because I want to leave as much time as I can for colleagues to make their points. I think the right hon. Gentleman is right to praise the families for the dignity that they have shown. I understand the regret over the time taken, and I think we all feel that. The only point I would make is that when you have an independent report, you have to allow it to be independent and you have to allow the chairman to make his or her own  decisions in their own way. While it has been frustrating, I think that frustration has probably been better than intervention.
In terms of the time the right hon. Gentleman was given to read the report, I did not want politicians, including the former Prime Minister, to be given more time than the families themselves. That is why the 8 o’clock deadline was set. On the report itself, I think the right hon. Gentleman is right to say, and the report finds, that the intervention did create space for al-Qaeda. The only point I would make is that it is important to remember that violent Islamist extremism—al-Qaeda and all of that—started long before the Iraq war. It started long before 9/11, which was several years before the Iraq invasion. It is important to remember that.
In terms of the litany of failures, I have been able to read the executive summary and some other bits and pieces, as I am sure colleagues will. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a litany of failures: the disbanding of the army, the de-Ba’athification, the way the Coalition Provisional Authority worked and the failure to plan for the aftermath. There were very powerful points made by Sir John Chilcot.
In terms of the lessons to learn, many of the points the right hon. Gentleman made we have already put in place: proper Cabinet discussions, National Security Council discussions, parliamentary votes and the oversight of the intelligence agencies. Before coming up with even more ways to oversee our intelligence agencies, I would urge colleagues from right around the House to look at the way the beefed-up Intelligence and Security Committee works and at the other things that we have done, not least in the legislation going through both Houses. We do need to leave our intelligence services with a clear set of instructions and oversight arrangements, rather than changing them every five minutes.
A war powers Act is something that can be discussed in the two-day debate. It is something I have looked at very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that this is not the right thing to do. I think we would get ourselves into a legal mess. But the House should clearly debate it, as it will when it considers the report.
On the issue of the United States, the right hon. Gentleman calls for an open partnership. I do not believe that the United States is always right about everything, but I do believe that our partnership with the United States is vital for our national security. I rather fear that his approach is that the United States is always wrong. I do not think that they are always right, but I think that they are always our best partner, and we should work with them.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman and others to take the time to read the report—not in its entirety; I do not think any of us will have time for 3.8 million words—because it is very carefully judged and very carefully thought through. We should read it in conjunction  with the statement that Sir John has given today, which is a very articulate distillation of what he says in his 200-page summary. I think that that is what we should be guided by.

Kenneth Clarke: We will all need time to study the many damning conclusions in this report about how this catastrophic decision was reached in 2003, but the Prime Minister says that we  should read it with an eye to future lessons for the machinery of government. Although I know from my own experience that the introduction of the National Security Council was a very valuable innovation, does my right hon. Friend agree that his successor should be recommended to look at whether we should return to the pre-Blair era of full collective Cabinet responsibility with proper time for meetings, proper information and studied conclusions? Does he agree that we should also look at whether proper parliamentary accountability for these things should be reconsidered so that there are full and properly informed debates here held in good time before, in cases such as this, the military are deployed, everything is set in hand and the position is irreversible? We really do need to go back to a much more collective and accountable form of government.

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend makes good points. Let me respond. In terms of Cabinet responsibility, yes, before a decision such as this is made we need to have a Cabinet meeting and Cabinet discussion, but I would not try to substitute that for the work that the NSC now does, in which the head of MI5, the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff are around the table. They sit there as equal members able to speak up and tell us what they think. That debate is frankly more valuable than simply listening to other Secretaries of State, although they are there as well. I still think that that is the best place to do that.
Yes, we should have parliamentary debates and it is good if we have them in reasonable time. One of the issues with the Iraq debate was that it was so close to the point of decision that many colleagues felt that to vote in a different way was somehow to let down our troops on the eve of a vitally important decision. Early debate is always good.

Angus Robertson: May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for a few short hours this morning to have a look at the millions of words in the report? Today we remember the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in Iraq—Iraqi civilians and, of course, the 179 UK service personnel who have lost their lives. Today is an important and sombre day for their families, and our hearts go out to them.
The report that we are considering now will be pored over in the days, weeks and months ahead, and it should be the first step in learning the lessons from the UK’s most shameful foreign policy action in decades. Paragraph 409 of the executive summary of the Chilcot report confirms that on 28 July 2002, Tony Blair wrote to President Bush saying:
“I will be with you, whatever”.
Frankly, it is remarkable that the Prime Minister did not think that that was noteworthy enough to mention in his statement to the House. My first question to the Prime Minister is why he did not do so, given that much of the debate rests on the rationale of the Prime Minister of the time for signing up to whatever course of action the United States was prepared to pursue?
On intelligence, the report concludes at paragraph 807:
“The assessed intelligence had not established beyond doubt either that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued.”
I completely understand why the families of dead and injured UK service personnel, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, will feel that they were deceived about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. I completely understand why they also feel let down when it comes to the post-conflict situation, and the Chilcot report catalogues in graphic detail the failures in planning for post-conflict Iraq.
Paragraph 630 of the executive summary states that
“when Mr Blair set out the UK’s vision for the future of Iraq in the House of Commons on 18 March 2003, no assessment had been made of whether that vision was achievable, no agreement had been reached with the US on a workable post-conflict plan, UN authorisation had not yet been secured, and there had been no decision on the UN’s role in post-conflict Iraq.”
The summary goes on to say at paragraph 814:
“Mr Blair, who recognised the significance of the post-conflict phase, did not press President Bush for definite assurances about US plans, did not consider or seek advice on whether the absence of a satisfactory plan called for reassessment of the terms of the UK’s engagement and did not make agreement on such a plan a condition of UK participation in military action.”
In fact, the Chilcot report concludes, at paragraph 857:
“The UK did not achieve its objectives”.
Lack of planning has been evident since, in relation to Afghanistan, Libya and Syria; most recently there has been absolutely no plan whatever for Brexit. When will UK Governments of Tory or Labour hue actually start learning from the mistakes of the past so that we are not condemned to repeat them? I hope and expect that in the months ahead there will be the opportunity to hold to account those who are associated with and responsible for taking the UK to war in Iraq. It has not only caused hundreds of thousands of deaths; it has undermined people’s faith in Parliament and Government in the UK and left an indelible stain on Britain’s standing in the world.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He rightly said that it is a sombre day—he is absolutely correct. He highlighted a number of the very serious mistakes that were made, not least on planning for the aftermath. He asked specifically why I did not mention the specific Tony Blair note to President Bush. I was trying to be very careful in my statement to accurately summarise what Sir John Chilcot has said. There was a whole section in my statement about the processes, and I said that Sir John had found that at crucial points Mr Blair sent personal notes and made important commitments to Mr Bush that had not been discussed or agreed with Cabinet colleagues. It is worth reading Sir John Chilcot’s statement from this morning about that.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly focused on paragraph 630 of the executive summary. It is a powerful paragraph that says that
“when Mr Blair set out the UK’s vision for the future of Iraq in the House of Commons on 18 March 2003, no assessment had been made of whether that vision was achievable, no agreement had been reached with the US on a workable post-conflict plan, UN authorisation had not yet been secured”
and so on. That is one of the most powerful passages in the report, and he is right to draw attention to it.
I do not accept that all the same failures are in some way apparent when it comes to planning in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan there was a very clear connection as a Taliban regime was playing host to al-Qaeda. The goal of Government policy, which I supported at the time and indeed put in place when I became Prime Minister, was to make sure that that country could not become a safe haven for al-Qaeda. There was some considerable success in pursuing that aim. There was a huge amount of planning on the post-conflict situation in Afghanistan, and we are still engaged in that. It is not right to say that there was no plan; there is a plan. There is a UK-run officer training academy to strengthen the Afghan army. But as I said earlier, you can have all the plans in the world, but these are still extremely difficult things to  get right.
If the right hon. Gentleman is somehow saying that there is no point in ever taking part in any intervention or trying to help any of these countries, that is a different position, and he should be honest and say that. But I would argue that with Afghanistan and Libya—and indeed with Brexit—we have set out the alternatives. That does not mean they are easy.

Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Affairs Committee has stayed its inquiry into our intervention in Libya in order to take into account the conclusions of the Iraq inquiry. Given that it could be claimed that the inquiry’s central conclusions apply to some degree or other to Libya—not least as stabilisation planning for Libya was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) at the time as “fanciful rot” and has been described to us since in evidence as “an unrealistic desktop exercise”—will the Prime Minister reconsider his understandable decision not to give oral evidence to us during the referendum campaign, so that the reach of the changes to the machinery of Government that he outlined earlier to the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) can be properly assessed by the Committee?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The Foreign Secretary will be giving evidence to his Committee. The Prime Minister is always asked to give evidence to every Select Committee of the House. I try to stick to answering questions here in the Chamber, and at the Liaison Committee and the National Security Committee, which bring together members of a number of different Committees. I do not think what he asks will be possible but I always consider any request.

Margaret Beckett: May I first wholeheartedly endorse the Prime Minister’s remarks about those who lost their lives? Does he agree that each of us, in Cabinet or in this House, are responsible and should take responsibility for our own individual decisions, albeit taken in good faith on the basis of evidence before us? Equally, does he agree that the men of hatred and death in al-Qaeda and Daesh/ISIL should take responsibility for their actions and for the blood and horror that they inflict on others?

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was a relatively new Back Bencher who sat up there on the Opposition Benches listening to the arguments and coming to my own conclusions. Anyone who voted  for the conflict has to take their share of responsibility. I do not choose to go back and say, “Well, if I had known then what I know now,” and all the rest of it. I think you make a decision, you defend it at the time and then you have to live with the consequences and bear your share of responsibility. That is the position I take.
The right hon. Lady makes a very good point about the evil of violent extremists, whether al-Qaeda, Daesh or others. This problem in our world existed before the Iraq war. It exists and is worse today. We are doing all sorts of things in all sorts of ways to try to combat it. Although the debate about what happened in Iraq and the decisions that were taken is vital, we must not let it sap our energy for dealing with this cancer in our world, which is killing us in our own country.

David Davis: The Prime Minister referred to the cause or aim of the war as being weapons of mass destruction. I draw his attention back to the document sent from Tony Blair to the American President. After it says
“I will be with you, whatever”,
it goes on to say that the reason is that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is
“the right thing to do.”
The aim was regime change, not WMDs. That fact, and the fact that, as Sir John Chilcot says, Blair’s commitment made it very difficult for the UK to withdraw support for military action, amount to a deception and a misleading of this House of Commons. It is not the only one. Sir John has been very careful about avoiding accusing the former Prime Minister of lying to the House, but a lot of the evidence suggests that he did. What action can this House take to deal with that?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have had longer than anyone else to read the report, but I accept that trying to get to the bottom of that particular issue is difficult. Sir John Chilcot seems to be saying that the British Government had a policy of sort of coercive diplomacy—they wanted to use the pressure of the threat of military action to get Saddam to comprehensively disarm. Look, everyone is going to have to read the report and come to their own conclusions. From my reading of it, Sir John Chilcot is not accusing anyone of deliberate explicit deceit, but people will have to read the report and come to their own conclusions.

Tim Farron: Today, we stand alongside the families of the 179 British servicemen and women and 24 British civilians who died in the Iraq war. We also stand beside the many more who continue to live with injuries sustained while serving their country in Iraq. We are proud of them and we honour them.
The Chilcot report makes clear the absolute determination of the former Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair to pursue war in Iraq, no matter what the evidence. There is a stark contrast between that single-minded determination to go to war and the reckless and complete absence of any plan for what would come next. What came next was 179 British servicemen and women killed, as well as 100,000, or more, Iraqi civilians. What came next was the fuelling of what is now ISIS-Daesh, which threatens not only Iraq but the middle east and the safety of us all.
In 2003, the much missed Charles Kennedy said in this House:
“The big fear that many of us have is that the action will simply breed further generations of suicide bombers.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 786.]
Will the Prime Minister now take the opportunity on behalf of his party and this House to acknowledge that Charles Kennedy was right all along in leading opposition across the country to a counterproductive war? Should not those who accused Charles Kennedy of appeasement —some of whom are still on these Benches—apologise to him, his family, our servicemen and women, our country, and the people of Iraq?

David Cameron: My recollection of the debates is that there were honest disagreements between colleagues who were listening to the arguments and making their decisions. I do not think that anyone should be accused of appeasement for voting against the war, and neither should those who voted in favour of it in good faith and on the evidence that they were given be subject to unfair criticism. People who voted for the war, like me, have to take their share of the responsibility. That is important, but I do not think it right to accuse people who voted against the war of appeasement.

Caroline Spelman: I was shadow International Development Secretary at the time, and I asked 91 written questions of the Government, culminating in an Opposition day debate on 30 January 2003 because I had not received any satisfactory answers. For the sake of the many, many victims, will the Prime Minister please assure the House that we have truly learned the lessons of failure to plan for contingency?

David Cameron: I remember well how effective my right hon. Friend was in holding those many debates. People say that we did not debate the post-war reconstruction of Iraq, but actually we debated it endlessly in the House, and a lot of questions were put and a lot of debates held. It is clear from the report that there was a total planning failure, an assumption that the Americans had a plan when they did not, and that the UN would move in comprehensively when it did not. According to Sir John, there was an assumption that British troops would be out in three to four months, which obviously did not happen. That is one of the clearest areas of criticism; it is the area of failure that should be accepted most clearly, and for which we should plan most carefully in any future conflict.

Ann Clwyd: I thank the Prime Minister for summing up the main findings of the Chilcot report, although unlike him I have not had the opportunity to read even the summary. Does he agree that in 2003, when he, I, and many of our colleagues voted for the war, we did so on the basis of the knowledge that we had? Iraq was in breach of 17 UN resolutions in 2003. In 1988 Saddam Hussein had already killed half a million of his own people, and he went on to kill more and more, including the Shi’a and the Marsh Arabs in the south, and the Kurds in the north. In the mass graves at Al-Hillah lie 10,000 Iraqi bodies, many of them still undiscovered, and those of us who campaigned   for human rights in Iraq over many years—I have done so for more than 30 years—were well aware of the torture and horrors that were happening in that country.
I wish people would ask Iraqis what they think of the invasion, because many Iraqis are grateful that we took the action that we did at that time. I hope that we have a greater opportunity to discuss those matters, because there was some planning—not enough, I agree—part of which I was involved in and can speak about. The horrors of Saddam Hussein and what he did to his own people in Halabja and elsewhere were clearly documented, and I think we were right to take part in that invasion.

David Cameron: I well remember that when I was on the Opposition Benches and the right hon. Lady was on the Government Benches, she made very powerful speeches about the appalling things that Saddam Hussein did to his own people and the practices in that country, which is a fair point. I also think that when the case was made, people were acting on the knowledge in front of them. It was not just about weapons of mass destruction; there was a sense that we were trying to uphold the position of the United Nations, and the massive danger that Saddam Hussein posed to the region and to his own people. However, those of us who voted for the war must be frank that the consequences of what followed have been truly very poor. That is what Sir John finds, in the section of his report in which he writes about the Government’s objectives not being met, and he states that far from dealing with the problem of regimes potentially linking up with terrorists, which Tony Blair talked about from this Dispatch Box, this action ended up creating a space for al-Qaeda. We must learn all those lessons, including the more painful ones.

Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are lessons for every Member of the House, and every member of the media, regarding how we assess evidence? We can no longer take refuge in the pretence that we did not know the evidence about the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction. The reports states:
“The assessed intelligence had not established beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons”
or that efforts to developed nuclear weapons continued. That evidence was set out in the dossier, and as I showed in evidence to the Chilcot report, someone who read the dossier line by line could not fail to reach the same conclusion as Robin Cook, which was that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The fact that largely we did not reach that conclusion is because we have ceased to look at evidence and we rely on briefings from spin doctors and those on our Front Benches. If the House is to get a grip on issues in future, it must go back to looking at the evidence, and so should journalists.

David Cameron: A lot of things have changed since that evidence was produced in the way it was, and one of the most important things is the renewed independence and practices of the Joint Intelligence Committee. Ministers still see individual pieces of intelligence, and one wants to have a regular update, but the process of producing JIC reports and assessments is incredibly rigorous. I do not think that what happened could happen again in the same way, because the reports that we get from that Committee are now much clearer  about what it knows, and what it thinks or conjectures, rather than anything else. I think we can avoid that situation. However, that does not solve the problem for the House of Commons, because it is impossible to share all that intelligence information widely with every Member of Parliament.

Nigel Dodds: May I join others in paying tribute to the servicemen and women, and the hundreds of thousands of civilians, who died in the conflict in Iraq? One of the greatest scandals of this whole episode is the lack of resources for our troops who were sent into battle without the equipment they needed, and that must never be allowed to happen again. Will the Prime Minister say why he believes that the national security machinery that he has established would have forestalled the evident mistakes made in Whitehall in the run-up to the commitment in Iraq?

David Cameron: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he says. On the specific issue of equipment, money for our armed services is not infinite, but we have got rid of the black hole in the defence budget so that resources and commitments are more in balance. By having a security and defence review every five years—we have had two since I have been Prime Minister—we are matching what we are spending to the things that our forces and security require. That is a big improvement, but it depends on having the resources. I have tried to explain why the National Security Council architecture helps to solve some of those problems, but I am not standing here saying, “You can completely reduce any risk of mistake, planning, and all the rest of it”, because these things are by their nature very complicated.

Dominic Grieve: Human institutions will never be perfect, and neither are they perfectible. The conclusions of the Chilcot inquiry into the way that legal advice and intelligence was processed, and intelligence used to inform policy, are pretty damning. My right hon. Friend has rightly highlighted that much has changed since then. I can certainly vouch for the fact that the processes by which legal advice is obtained—which I hope have been continued—are rather different from those that Sir John identified. The collation of intelligence is an extremely difficult skill. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is subject to enough scrutiny and subsequent review to ensure that lessons can be learned when mistakes in intelligence assessment are made? That seems to be one of the key areas in which future decision making is capable of continuing improvement.

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the way legal advice is produced and considered today is very different to then. We have the National Security Council, on which the Attorney General sits, and before such decisions are made a well-thought-through piece of written legal advice is produced. The Attorney General is not suddenly called on to do this; he is in the room while these vital meetings take place. That is something he did brilliantly and his successor is doing brilliantly.
My right hon. and learned Friend’s point on the collation of evidence and whether we are getting it right is a more difficult question to answer. There is no doubt  that, post-Butler, the Joint Intelligence Committee is incredibly rigorous about reaching judgments: testing them around the experts in Whitehall, confirming them often with the Americans and others, and not pretending to know things that it does not know. On how well we test that, there is a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in thinking about whether we have got judgments right after they have been made, but perhaps more thinking can be done on that.
I would just emphasise that for all the intelligence, briefing and information in the world, at the end we still have to make a decision. We never have perfect information on which we make that decision: we are weighing up a balance of risks. That is often the case, whether we are going to take action against terrorists or to try to help secure a particular national interest. In the end, we have to decide and then defend in this House the decision we have made.

Alan Johnson: The epitaph on Robin Cook’s headstone in the Grange cemetery in Edinburgh reads as follows:
“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war.”
The Prime Minister is right in saying that, in these circumstances, Parliament cannot be involved in the decision and then simply try to duck responsibility for the ramifications of that decision. Does he agree that the main element in the debate in which Parliament decided, on 13 March 2003, was not the 45-minute claim, which was not mentioned anywhere in those hours of debate, but the fact that Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons had spent 13 years running rings around the United Nations, ignoring 17 UN resolutions, including resolutions calling for all necessary means to stop him? Was that not the main issue in that debate? Has the Prime Minister found any evidence whatever of any lies told to Parliament on that day?

David Cameron: My memory of the debate is that it was about the balance of risks between action and inaction. The case made by the then Prime Minister was that there was a real risk of inaction against someone who had been defying the UN, had done terrible things to his people and threatened his neighbours. The danger was of that coming together with a potential programme of weapons of mass destruction and the other instabilities in the world post-9/11. We have to remember that it was post-9/11 when we were considering all this. That is what I think I felt, as a relatively young Back Bencher, we were voting on. Weapons of mass destruction were a part of the picture, not the whole picture.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about deliberate deceit, I think we have to read the report very carefully. I cannot see in here an accusation of deliberately deceiving people, but there is certainly information that was not properly presented. Different justifications were given before and subsequently for the action that was taken, and there are a number of other criticisms about processes, but deliberate deceit—I can find no reference to it.

Edward Leigh: I do not think the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who voted for this war, should in any way feel ashamed of what they did or indeed be apologetic. As usual, the Prime Minister has  acted with honour and dignity, as he always does. The fact is that we believed the Prime Minister of the time—I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, too—about weapons of mass destruction. Frankly, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), some of us walked into the No Lobby, but it was a narrow decision. I do not think there is any point in recriminations, because I think everybody in this House acted in good faith at the time. However, can we draw a lesson for the future? Surely, we must distinguish between unpleasant authoritarian regimes, such as those of Assad and Saddam, which we must deter and contain, and totalitarian terrorism movements, such as Daesh, which we must be prepared to seek to destroy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend and I are not always on the same side of every argument, but on this I think he is absolutely right. There is a difference between deterrence and containment in some cases, and pre-emptive action when there is a direct threat to one’s country. That is a very good framework on which to think of these sorts of interventions. I would also add that there is a third: when we think we need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, which was the reason I stood at this Dispatch Box and said we should take action with regard to Libya. That is a very good framework for thinking about these matters.

Hilary Benn: All of us who voted for the Iraq war must and will take our share of responsibility, but there are many of us who do not regret the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, for the reasons so powerfully set out a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Does the Prime Minister recognise that one of the wider lessons from Iraq is that we need a United Nations that is capable of giving effect to the responsibility to protect, so that brutal dictators who murder and terrorise their own population can and will be held to account?

David Cameron: As so often, the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great clarity on these matters. Of course, we need a UN that can do that. That is why we sometimes end up in the situation of being absolutely certain that it is right to take a particular action, but because of a veto on the United Nations Security Council, it somehow becomes legally wrong. There is a question sometimes about how can something be morally right but legally wrong. We therefore need to make sure we keep looking at reforming the United Nations, so we can bring those two things together.

John Baron: In the hope that we all accept that war should always the measure of last resort once all other possible options have been exhausted and given the publication of the Chilcot report, will the Prime Minister now do something that no Government have done since 2003: finally and unequivocally admit that this intervention was both wrong and a mistake?

David Cameron: I think people should read the report and come to their own conclusions. Clearly, the aftermath of the conflict was profoundly disastrous in  so many ways. I do not move away from that at all. I just take the view that if we voted in a particular way, we cannot turn the clock back. We have to take our share of responsibility, but we learn the lessons of what clearly went wrong.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Prime Minister for prior sight of the report this morning. Point 20 states that
“the diplomatic options had not at that stage been exhausted. Military action was therefore not a last resort.”
So despite the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction and despite any possible deficiencies in the advice from the Joint Intelligence Committee, point 22 states:
“Led by Mr Blair, the UK Government chose to support military action.”
Point 364 states that the UK Government held
“that it was right or necessary to defer to its close ally and senior partner, the US.”
Given that, the undermining of the UN and the disastrous and horrible consequences, is it not inconceivable that Mr Blair should not be held to account for his actions?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman reads out some very important parts of the report. It is significant that Sir John Chilcot finds that this undermined the United Nations. Some of us felt at the time that the United Nations was being undermined by the actions of Saddam Hussein and the fact that he was not complying with so many resolutions, but we need to study that and take that into account. As for how people should account for themselves, it is for them to read the report and explain why they did what they did. My role here, on the publication of the report, is to allow the House to discuss it and set out the lessons I think we should learn. I am far more concerned about the future, and how we learn what is in here, rather than rerun the whole Iraq debate all over again.

David Amess: It may be unusual for anyone in this place to change the way they vote following a speech made here, and I cannot prove that I did so; but that is what I did on the night of the debate, because of what was said about weapons of mass destruction. I now have to listen and wrestle with my own conscience, and shame on me. The then Prime Minister must wrestle with his own conscience. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the then Prime Minister must take full responsibility for encouraging this House to take the decision it did, which had disastrous consequences that destabilised the world?

David Cameron: Of course it is right that the people who took the decision have to bear the responsibility. That is absolutely right.

Mike Gapes: I voted for the action in 2003. It was a difficult decision, but I do not apologise. I believe that we were right to remove the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein. The Prime Minister referred to what has happened in Libya and Syria. Can he speculate about what might have happened in Iraq if Saddam or Uday Hussein had been in power in 2011? Is it not likely that the Ba’athist fascists in Iraq would have   killed more than the 500,000 dead Syrians and created more than the 11 million refugees who have fled their homes and been displaced in Syria?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks a question that it is impossible to answer. I can say only that just as there are consequences of intervention, there are consequences of non-intervention. We have discovered that with Syria, where there have been appalling numbers of deaths and displacements of people, along with the booming industry of terrorism. One could argue in many ways that that is the consequence of non-intervention rather than intervention, but I cannot answer his question.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for pledging on behalf of this House that our soldiers who suffered life-changing injuries in the Iraq war should be looked after for the rest of their lives. May I remind the House that we have an equal duty to soldiers who suffered life-changing injuries in previous conflicts, including some of my 35 men who were so badly wounded at Ballykelly on 6 December 1982, as well as others in the Regular Army, the Territorial Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who suffered so grievously in previous conflicts?

David Cameron: With his military background, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be an enormous change in tempo for the British Army. We have seen not only a large number of people tragically losing their lives, but a very large number of people suffering from life-changing injuries—people who lost limbs but want to live full and active lives. Just as after previous major conflicts, the country came together to help make sure that happened, so it is important that we continue to fund and support facilities such as Headley Court and all the work that charities do. That will help others who suffered life-changing injuries in other conflicts.

Alex Salmond: Chilcot has concluded that this country did not go to war as a last resort, that the authority of the United Nations was undermined and that the chaos and carnage that has ensued can partly be explained by the complete lack of planning for the aftermath. Given that we now know from Chilcot of the memo written by the then Prime Minister on 28 July to George W. Bush, saying,
“I will be with you, whatever”,
I do not understand how that is in any way compatible with what was said to Parliament and people at the time. Amid all this stuff about improving processes, which I acknowledge as fantastically important, is it not at the end of the day people who make decisions, and in our search for responsibility would it not help if individuals who were responsible were held to account?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight those important aspects of the report. The war was not a last resort; we were not at that stage. According to Sir John Chilcot, the UN was undermined and a fundamental lack of planning led to so many of the subsequent problems. The right hon. Gentleman is also right that the people who took those decisions  should be held accountable—in this House and in the court of public opinion. They should be accountable, too, to those who might want to take action through the courts, as has happened, with respect to equipment failures and all the rest of it in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, the Government of the day and the Prime Minister of the day have to account for themselves. I understand that Mr Blair is doing that right now.

Jack Lopresti: In respect of the structure of government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the national security adviser should, rather than being a civil servant, be a Cabinet Minister? That would help to bring all the different strands of government together, provide more accountability and transparency, and perhaps more focus and better decision making. While we develop the convention that we come to this place to debate, discuss and vote on taking military action, is it not the case that ultimately any Prime Minister needs to retain the authority to deploy military force and take the military into action? We do not know what the future holds, and there might be circumstances in which it is impractical for Parliament to do so or we do not have the time to do so.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his second point. Prime Ministers do need to be able to deploy force or take action without parliamentary sanction if it is urgent and then to report to Parliament straight afterwards. Where there is a premeditated decision to take action, that convention has grown up, and I am happy to repeat it from the Dispatch Box.
As for the national security adviser, I think it is right to have an expert. It does not have to be someone who is currently a civil servant—an expert could be brought in from outside—but it does need to be an expert who is garnering together the military, civilians, the intelligence and all the different parts of Whitehall. It needs to be someone who is full time, rather than a politician who is also running a Department.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the Prime Minister put on the record that he believes all those who voted for the action against Saddam Hussein did so in good faith? On the very important lessons to be learned, does he acknowledge that just as there are consequences, sometimes terrible, of military intervention, so there are consequences of non-intervention, as we are seeing at huge cost today in Syria?

David Cameron: I am happy to make both those points. I am sure everyone, like me, came here, listened to the arguments, wrestled with the difficult decision and then took it. We can look back now and see how we feel about all the things that happened subsequently. I am sure that everyone made their decision in good faith. The consequences of non-intervention can been seen clearly in Syria, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). This is true, and it is worth mentioning other humanitarian issues, as I did in my statement with respect to Srebrenica and Rwanda.

Andrew Murrison: Our troops shouldered the burden of Mr Blair’s disastrous Iraq war and paid the price in blood. On a gentler note and speaking as an Iraq veteran, I commend the Prime  Minister for the work he has done for our troops, our veterans and their families by improving their lot. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope and expectation that his successor will do the same?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for all the good work he has done, not least in commemorating the battles of the first world war 100 years ago. We have now set up, with the military covenant written into law and with the covenant support group, a mechanism in Whitehall so that every year we can try to go further in supporting armed forces, veterans and their families. This provides a mechanism for ideas to come forward. Whether by providing help through council tax, the pupil premium, free bus passes or better medical assistance, there is a forum for those ideas to be properly considered in a way that I do not think they were in the past.

Caroline Lucas: We have heard a lot of criticism of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, all of it justified. I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on his own role and that of his colleagues in the Conservative party who voted for war in Iraq. His party were the official Opposition; they heard Robin Cook’s powerful speech demolishing the Government’s case; the Prime Minister had voices in his own party arguing that the invasion would be a catastrophe—the evidence was there if people chose to look for it. Would it not be a step towards restoring public trust in this House to offer some form of apology for the decision to support the war?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady wants to replay all the arguments of the day, but I do not see a huge amount of point in that. Members of Parliament came to this House, listened to the arguments and made the decisions in good faith. They can now reflect on whether they think the decisions they took were right or wrong. Instead of what she suggests, I think that we should try, as Sir John Chilcot does, to learn the lessons from what happened and find out what needs to be put in place to make sure that mistakes cannot be made in the future.

Alex Chalk: The decision not to give Hans Blix more time to conclude his UN weapons inspections is surely one of the principal misjudgments of the pre-war period. Does my right hon. Friend feel that in the light of the changes he alludes to in the culture and practice of government, the scope for ignoring the UN in this way has been reduced?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right: one of the most powerful points in the report is that Blix should have been given more time. That argument was advanced at the time, but the way in which it is expressed by Sir John gives it even more force.
I do not think I can stand here and honestly say that all the changes we put in place make mistakes like that impossible. At the end of the day, Governments and Cabinets must make judgments on the basis of the evidence in front of them. The National Security Council, given the way in which it is set up, provides a better forum when it comes to making decisions, listening to  arguments and hearing expert advice. I think that that makes it more difficult to press ahead if you cannot take expert opinion with you, although, of course, in the end Cabinet Ministers can decide.

David Winnick: However wrong it was to take military action on the basis of false intelligence—and I accept my responsibility in that I voted for military action—were not many of us very much influenced by Saddam’s notorious record? His aggression against the Iranian state, a war that lasted eight years, took the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people on both sides, but he was not satisfied with that, and two years later the aggression against Kuwait resulted in the first Gulf war. Would it not also be totally wrong to conclude that had it not been for this invasion—which, as I say, should not have taken place, because it was based on false intelligence—everything would have been fine in the middle east? Look at what is happening in Syria, where we did not intervene—rightly, I believe, and again I was influenced by what happened in relation to what we are discussing now.

David Cameron: I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I think he has put it very well. Saddam Hussein had an appalling record. He had gassed the Kurds, he had murdered his own people, and he had invaded his neighbour. He had used weapons of mass destruction in the past, we were being told that he was developing them again for the future, and we were being asked, on the basis of that, whether we could really risk leaving him in place and leaving those programmes in place, given the heightened risk post 9/11. Those were all very strong arguments, and I think it is worth recalling that.
It is also worth taking account of the hon. Gentleman’s other point. Who knows what would have happened if Saddam had still been in place at the time of the Arab spring, but it is quite possible to believe that his reactions to his own people would have been rather like the reactions of President Assad to his own people, which, I would argue, have perhaps done more to foment terrorism and cause extremism than anything else in the last decade.

Johnny Mercer: Today is a dark day for the United Kingdom Government, a tragic day for Iraq, and a desperate day for the families of our servicemen and women, who I know are watching today. War is not a sport. This should be a time for deep reflection and humility, throughout the Government and throughout the upper echelons of the military who advise the Government.
I pay tribute to those who fought, and to their families. They are the best of us, they are the true patriots, and they made the greatest possible sacrifice for the liberties that we enjoy in the House. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must ensure that how we say we want to look after these people and how we actually look after them are the same thing?

David Cameron: As ever on these matters, my hon. Friend speaks with great clarity. He is right to say that this is a moment for deep reflection. He is also right to say that as we think of our armed service personnel and those who serve, we should be proud of what they  did. We should be proud of their bravery and their courage. They were obeying the command of this House, and serving in the way in which we would expect them to. My hon. Friend is right to think of it like that. He is also right to say that we must ensure that the promises of the armed services covenant are kept in reality as well as on paper.

Derek Twigg: May I say to the Prime Minister that we should remember that the real responsibility for the murder and killing of so many Iraqi civilians lies with Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda and its offshoots, and, of course, Isis? May I also say this to him? Three main complaints were made about Tony Blair and the Government’s decision at the time. The first was that he misled Parliament, or lied to Parliament. The Prime Minister has said that that has not been found in the Chilcot report, but perhaps he would like to confirm that again. The second was that intelligence had been doctored, and, as I understand it from my quick reading of the report, that has not been found either. The third was that the war had been illegal. Of course, Chilcot is not deciding on that, but we do not know that he makes very clear in his report that it relied on evidence from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, that it was legal to go to war at that point.

David Cameron: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to read the report in order to answer those questions in full, but, in shorthand, let me say this. First, the report makes clear that No. 10 and the Prime Minister did not wrongly alter the dossier that was produced. I think that there are some comments about how the report did not necessarily reflect all the things that were in other papers from the Joint Intelligence Committee, but that is a different point.
On the issue of whether the war was legal or illegal, Chilcot does not take a stand. Perhaps I will read out later exactly what he says, but he says that there was legal advice, that the legal advice made a legal case for a war, and that that is how the Government proceeded. However, he is not saying that he is taking a position.
On the issue of misleading Parliament, there is nothing in the Chilcot report that I can see that points to deliberate deceit, but there were clearly occasions when more information, or better information, could have been presented. I think that the report must be read carefully, but those are my shorthand answers to the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Richard Drax: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I gather from what I have heard so far that there will be no political recriminations, for reasons that I understand, but will he assure me that, as there will no recriminations against those who sent our armed forces to war, there will be no recriminations against our armed forces who are being chased by ruthless lawyers for doing our bidding and looking after our nation?

David Cameron: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We are doing everything we can to get through and knock down these wholly unjustified inquiries, because by and large, as we would expect, British forces behaved entirely properly.

Pat McFadden: On this day, when we rightly reflect on our own intervention and our own responsibilities, it is important to remember that violence in Iraq did not begin in 2003. Among the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south, the regime of Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The lessons that should be learnt from the intervention are set out fully in the report, and they should be learnt. It has also rightly been said that we should learn lessons from not having intervened in Syria, where there has been a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the Prime Minister agree that the conclusion from all the lessons learnt should not be never to intervene? If that were the conclusion, it would result in the abandoning of oppressed people around the world, and the giving of a blank cheque to dictators and terrorist groups around the world.

David Cameron: I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I said in my statement that I thought there were lessons to learn but also lessons not to learn, and the lesson not to learn is that intervention is always wrong. There are occasions when it is right to intervene, because it is in the interests of our national security or because we are trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. We should be very clear about the fact that there have been occasions when we have not intervened and when we have seen almost as much chaos and difficulty as we are seeing in Syria.

Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but will he join me in expressing slight concern not only about the shape of the centre of government that was there at the time of the Blair Government, but about the Departments that supported it? The top of the pyramid cannot work unless the supporting pillars are in place. I have only read the executive summary, so I cannot comment in detail, but it seems clear to me that parts of the Ministry of Defence, including the chiefs of staff, were not delivering the advice that the Government needed, and that elements of the Foreign Office had succumbed to a form of group-think that leaves me deeply concerned about the structure and the advice that are available to Governments..

David Cameron: I am going to hesitate before replying to my hon. Friend, because there is not a huge amount about that in the executive summary of the Iraq inquiry. I think we will probably have to dive into the volumes to see exactly what Sir John has to say about advice from the MOD, advice from the Foreign Office, how much group-think there genuinely was, and all the rest of it. So I would hesitate. I think we need to study the report, and then we can discuss the matter during next week’s debate.

Mark Durkan: Those of us who come to the report scandalised anew by the duplicity of presentation and the paucity of preparation on such grave matters must nevertheless remember most those who are acutely burdened today by their cruel sense of futility of sacrifice in terms of lives lost, lives devastated and lives changed. The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised that lessons need to be learnt, but we must be careful not to turn the report into a greywash by  converting it into a syllabus about foresight in government and oversight in Parliament. This is not a day for soundbites, but does the Prime Minister not agree that the hand of history should be feeling someone’s collar?

David Cameron: I do not think it is a greywash or a whitewash or an anything elsewash. I think, from what I have seen so far, that this is a thorough effort in trying to understand the narrative of the events, the decisions that were taken and the mistakes that were made. I think there is a huge amount to learn and everyone who has played a part in it has to take their responsibility  for it.

James Heappey: It has been sobering this afternoon to hear the reflections of those who took the decision here in 2003. I went to Iraq in 2007 to deliver on that decision; it was a difficult and dangerous time. During that summer and the rest of the campaign, many of my friends and colleagues were sent home dead or injured.
The Prime Minister has spoken about the SDSR process, which now addresses the armed forces equipment requirements, but the threat evolves more quickly than that on the battlefield, particularly in an insurgency. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that the urgent operating requirement process is now quick enough so that we will never again send troops into battle in vehicles that are not fit for purpose?

David Cameron: May I thank my hon. Friend for his service, and thank all who served on operations after 2003 all the way through to when we withdrew? I will never forget going to Iraq and meeting some of the soldiers, some of them on their second or third tour, and their sense that the situation was extremely difficult.
One of the positive things that has come out of this and Afghanistan is that the urgent operational requirement system means we have commissioned some fantastic kit for our soldiers, sailors and airmen more quickly, and responded to their needs. By the time our troops were coming out of Afghanistan—I had been there, I think, 13 times over a period of six or seven years—they were saying that our equipment was now better than the Americans’, that they had things more quickly and that new bits of kit could be produced for them. There are some positive lessons to learn from all of this, as well as, obviously, the negative ones.

Richard Burden: May I also ask the House to pause for a minute to remember Robin Cook, who had the courage to speak up against the orthodoxy of the day, and the courage to speak out as a voice of sanity in 2003? The sequence of events that led to the UK’s participation in the invasion of Iraq shows that where the unshakeability of a political leader’s self-belief so traps him or her in its own logic that he or she cannot see beyond it, the consequences can be catastrophic. As someone who voted against the war in 2003, I know that the Iraq war did not create from scratch the multiple problems that we see today in the middle east, but it has made them so much more intractable. Does the Prime Minister agree that at root what the   peoples of the middle east want is not so different from what people over here want? They want security, they want respect, and they want to know that they are not treated with double standards by the international community.

David Cameron: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should recognise that what people in the middle east want is what we want, in terms of, as he says, respect, the right to decent government, the rule of law and decent standards.
It is worth reading the parts of the report about the weapons of mass destruction. It says in paragraph 496:
“The ingrained belief that Saddam Hussein’s regime retained chemical and biological warfare capabilities, was determined to preserve and if possible enhance its capabilities, including at some point in the future a nuclear capability, and was pursuing an active policy of deception and concealment, had underpinned UK policy towards Iraq since the Gulf Conflict ended in 1991.”
It was wrong that he had weapons of mass destruction—we now know he did not—but it is worth recalling the sense that I think everyone in this House had that it was very deeply ingrained in policy makers and policy thinkers that he did. So, yes, it is right that Chilcot comes to the conclusion that Robin Cook—standing on the Benches over there—was right to say, “You could look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion,” but it is important to remember just how many people and how many organisations were convinced that this was the basis of policy.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend will attend the NATO Warsaw summit this weekend, and he will be acutely aware of the pressure that NATO and its member states feel from Russia right now. Is it not the case that President Putin will be examining very closely the action this Parliament takes moving forward? As Parliament knows, NATO can only act when its Security Council meets and decides to act, but article 5 says that an invasion of one country is an invasion of all. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that this House does not move to a position whereby it has to approve that before we can take action, because otherwise we could find that the Iraq lessons, and Iraq as a whole, are used as another shield to never taking any military action?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right: we should not use this sobering moment of reflection, when we look at the mistakes that were made and the lessons to be learned, to think that somehow it is right for Britain to shrink away from international responsibilities and engagement. That would be the wrong lesson to learn from this.

Alistair Carmichael: Like the Prime Minister, I remember the debates of February and March 2003; we were both elected for the first time in 2001. What I remember is that many of the Members then who asked questions and demanded evidence were heckled, barracked and shouted down. When we have our debate on this report, it is right that, as well as scrutinising the conduct of others, this House should turn some of that scrutiny on itself.
We now know that much of what was purported to be evidence in 2003 was obtained from people who had been tortured, having been illegally rendered. Will the  Prime Minister give me an assurance that this country will never again base its foreign policy judgments on evidence or information obtained in that way?

David Cameron: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. That was something specifically addressed in the coalition Government: that we should not rely on, or use in any way, evidence delivered by means of torture.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving such an excellent statement on this war. As he knows, my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency includes 3 Commando Brigade, whose wives and families will have played a significant part in this whole conflict. Will he ensure that MPs representing other garrison cities are also given the names and details of the families so that we can communicate with them in order to talk to them about the impact this conflict will have had on their lives, too?

David Cameron: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that work is in hand.

Dan Jarvis: May I reiterate the comments about the loss of life in Iraq, and specifically take this opportunity to commemorate the service and sacrifice of our armed forces? They served in good faith, and we should be proud of them today, as we are every day.
It is critical that the public can have trust in the decisions we take in this place, and at no time is that truer than on a vote to take our country to war. Whatever we think about the judgment that was made, we  should acknowledge that the bond of trust between the Government, this House and the public has been damaged by the decision that was taken in 2003, and we here in this place today now have an absolute need to put that right for the future. Will the Prime Minister consider reviewing how intelligence is shared with Members of this House before voting on military action, in addition to considering what steps could be taken to improve MPs’, armed forces’ and our intelligence services’ ability to work together to take these most difficult decisions?

David Cameron: Let me join the hon. Gentleman, who himself served in our armed forces, in paying tribute to what our armed forces did in Iraq. They should be proud of the work they did; they were acting on behalf of this House of Commons and the Government who took that decision, and they behaved bravely and courageously, and we should remember that—and we should remember those who gave their lives and who were wounded.
On his question about how we share intelligence information with this House, I would just give him two reflections. One is that we have tried: in the case of Libya, and I think in the case of Syria, we tried to publish JIC-like assessments cleared for the House of Commons—and cleared, I might add, by officials rather than Ministers. The second point is to get the Chairman of the JIC to read the statement or speech made by the Prime Minister to make sure it accurately reflects the intelligence information. Those are two things we should try to do. Sometimes time is very short, and sometimes  the picture is changing—the intelligence is changing—but those are good things to try to do. But I say again that there is no perfection in all this: we can receive and share as much intelligence as we like, but in the end we have to make a decision and make an argument for that decision, and then defend it if it is right or if it is wrong.

Ben Howlett: Given that the Chilcot report found that the UK Government undermined UN Security Council’s authority and given the result of the EU referendum, what plans do the Government have to reinforce the Foreign Office to restore our international reputation?

David Cameron: The Foreign Office has been restored in many ways. The former Foreign Secretary William Hague restored the language school and opened a number of embassies around the world, and the Foreign Office is once again seen as a great place to work, so I do not think that that is the problem. We just have to go on recognising that the combination of our 2% of GDP spend on the military, our 0.7% spend on aid and our proper funding of the Foreign Office actually enhance our soft and hard powers in the world.

Danny Kinahan: I am always proud when we hear that we are not shrinking from our place on the world’s stage, but the brunt of that always falls on servicemen. Many people have spoken today about how we should be looking after our servicemen, giving them the right kit, the right mental health and legal support, but no one has yet said that we must also ensure that we always look after their families. When we review what we are doing every five years, can we guarantee that we ae putting enough resources in and keep considering how we look after servicemen’s families?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I did mention service families, because it is important that we look after them, and the military covenant is partly about them.

Kevin Foster: We have heard talk today about what a dreadful dictator Saddam was and how he had been ignoring UN rules, but the key question in 2003 was, “Why now?” That is why the intelligence around weapons of mass destruction was so crucial in trying to provide that “why now?” justification. Does the Prime Minister agree that the key thing about the special relationship is that it should be like any other relationship? The reason we are so close to some people is that they will tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear.

David Cameron: There is a good section of the report that is entitled “Why now?” because that was, I think, one of the sections of Tony Blair’s speech in this House. It is also important to read the part of the report about what would have happened if Britain had not stood alongside the United States. Sir John Chilcot’s view is that that would not have terminally damaged the special relationship, and I suspect that that view is probably correct.

Brendan O'Hara: As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said earlier, John Chilcot today confirmed  the existence of a dirty deal between Tony Blair and President Bush to pursue regime change in Iraq months before the matter came to the Floor of this House. Given that, will the Prime Minister join me in demanding that Tony Blair apologises unreservedly to the families of the 179 UK service personnel killed and to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who also died? Will the Prime Minister also join me in asking Mr Blair to apologise to the British public, whose faith in the democratic process has been fatally undermined by this whole sorry affair?

David Cameron: I think Mr Blair is probably speaking while we are here, so let us wait and see what he says in response to the report and whether it measures up to the level of events.

Jason McCartney: The barbarity of Saddam Hussein is beyond doubt and my thoughts are with the thousands of Kurds murdered by chemical weapons in the genocide at Halabja in 1988. Despite that, I did not support the 2003 war. Can we just clarify that military action was being taken against Saddam Hussein before then? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that Operation Warden and Operation Provide Comfort—the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, of which he knows I have knowledge—meant that Saddam Hussein was a caged animal?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend, who served in at least one of those missions, has made this point before and it is set out in the report as well. There was a policy of deterrence and containment, and I think Sir John Chilcot argues quite persuasively that that situation should have continued for longer, with more UN action and more inspector action, before the last resort of military action. He makes that point very clearly.

Chris Leslie: There are some practical constitutional lessons to be learned here, specifically for Parliament given its role in the process. For example, would it not be better if we had specific opportunity to scrutinise the Attorney General before such decisions are made? Should we not have better parliamentary scrutiny of the security services? On those occasions when we do have to come to a decision about military intervention, which is sometimes necessary, should there not be a better-equipped National Security Council, which somehow has a thread of accountability back to Parliament?

David Cameron: These are all interesting ideas and I am prepared to consider them. The Attorney General does answer questions in Parliament and is accountable to Parliament. The National Security Council’s members are accountable to Parliament and now there is this Committee of both Lords and Commons, in front of which I have appeared, that scrutinises the national security strategy. As I have said, our intelligence services are far more accountable than they have ever been, including giving speeches, openly, about what they are doing and then answering questions at ISC meetings in some considerable detail. I am always happy to consider other things, but we have come a huge way on accountability.

Philippa Whitford: I, too, pay tribute to the troops. Those who have ended up with broken lives because of the war should be looked after through the covenant for the long term, not just while they serve. We all know of cases of troops and their families who continue to suffer.
The two things that come out of this process are that, in essence, what was being carried out was regime change, which would not normally be considered a legal basis for going to war, and that the planning for the peace afterwards was inadequate. Does that not apply to Libya? What we predominantly got caught up with in Libya was getting rid of Gaddafi and we have invested on nation building a fraction of what was spent on the war.
The other thing is that Saddam Hussein was known to have attacked his own people, yet we still sold him weapons after that. We are still selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and have personnel involved. We are also getting involved in Yemen and yet there has been no decision about that.

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is right to say that the bit of the report that deals with the issue of whether the Government were involved in coercive diplomacy to try to make Iraq go down a different path or whether this was regime change needs very careful reading, but I disagree with her on Libya. It was a humanitarian intervention to stop the slaughter of innocent people. We then assisted as forces in Libya strove to get rid of a man who was a brutal dictator and who had delivered Semtex to the IRA—Semtex is probably still available to some people in Northern Ireland today—so I defend that. However, as I said, we can put all the processes and procedures in place and put money in, as we have done with Libya, and it can still be difficult to get a good outcome.

Kate Hoey: Many of us who voted against the war, particularly those on the Government side, remember the day vividly. We remember the arm-twisting and the letters trying to tell us to go and see the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. There was almost hysteria about getting the vote through. One lesson for Parliament and for Members of Parliament on both sides is that, sometimes, your country comes before your party.

David Cameron: I think your country should always come before your party. I am not a huge believer in arm-twisting, but there are sometimes occasions when you believe a course of action to be profoundly right and you want to try to persuade your colleagues. I persist in the view that it would have been better to take action with the United States against Assad after his use of chemical weapons—when he crossed that red line—and I attempted to persuade my colleagues. I do not think that I physically twisted anybody’s arm—it was more mental persuasion. I was not successful on that occasion, but that does not mean that it was not worth trying.

Pete Wishart: Hundreds of thousands of deaths, a region destabilised, a generation radicalised, a House deceived by a fabricated case for war—all of that is indelibly linked with one  man, who may as well have “Iraq” tattooed on his forehead. Someone must be held to account for what has happened over the course of the past few years.

David Cameron: As I have said, everyone has to account for their actions, such as the people who voted for this and the people who proposed it, and for the failure to plan. There is a whole set of arguments in this document that people want to consider to see how best to hold people to account.

Ian Austin: It is clear from these exchanges that the report will not settle questions about whether the war was right or wrong, but it should lay to rest once and for all allegations of bad faith, lies and deceit. The report clearly finds that there was no falsification or improper use of intelligence, no deception of the Cabinet and no secret commitment to war.

David Cameron: I think that everyone will have to study the report carefully. In an earlier answer I tried to give some shorthand answers to the question of deceit and the question of legality but, like the hon. Gentleman, I feel that many of these arguments will go on and on.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Somebody has just moaned about not being called to ask a question. I try to call everybody, but although what each individual has to say is enormously important to him or her, it is not necessarily any more important than what anybody else has to say. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any help in the discharge of my duties. I will call colleagues, but colleagues need to be patient, and I am sure that none of them, for one moment, would be self-important—that is unimaginable.

Peter Kyle: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
From my early and hurried reading of the report, I can see no evidence that anybody acted in bad faith. However, I am very aware that the report refers to a war that started 13 years ago. There have been several conflicts since; we intervened in Libya with airstrikes but not ground troops, and in Syria we did not act for several years. Is there anything about those subsequent conflicts, in which the Prime Minister led, that leads him to disagree with some of the report’s conclusions? That would give us an updated view so that we do not base all our future actions on a report about a war 13 years ago?

David Cameron: Questions like that probably need to wait for the debate, because they need longer answers. The only point I will make now is that in the case of Libya obviously we decided not to put in ground troops. That had the advantage of ensuring that there were not UK military casualties, but of course it had the disadvantage that we were less able directly to put in place a plan on the ground. The point I have tried to make today—maybe not as clearly as I should—is that these things are very difficult, by their very nature. We can have the best military plan and the best post-conflict plan—those are definitely needed—but even then there is no certainty that we will ultimately be successful. We should not pretend that there is some perfection that we can achieve. We can do a lot better than was done in the past, but we will never be perfect.

Tom Brake: I commend Charles Kennedy for the leadership he provided to me and others on this issue. Members who were not in the House in 2003 might not be aware of quite how difficult that decision was and how much criticism Charles and my colleagues received at the time. Does the Prime Minister believe that there are any pointers in the Chilcot report, or indeed anything from his personal experience, that could help opposition parties faced with a similar decision in future to be better placed to scrutinise the decisions that a Government might be about to take?

David Cameron: That is a very good question. I think that all the advances that have been made, such as Select Committees having access to Government papers, scrutiny of the intelligence and security services, and the production of written summaries of legal advice, help, but in the end we cannot substitute for judgment.

Ian Lucas: In March 2013 Hans Blix believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but he wanted more time. I voted on that day to give him more time, but the official Opposition did not, and in my view they failed in their duty to scrutinise properly. Does the Prime Minister agree that a lesson for today is that in order for a Government to work effectively, they have to have a competent and effective Opposition?

David Cameron: I am all for competent and effective opposition. On the job of the Opposition, I take both bits seriously: Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. If you think the Government are making a decision in the interests of the country, you should support it. If you think they are making a mistake, you should oppose it. The job is not to oppose come what may.

Jim Shannon: Prime Minister, thank you for your statement. You referred, in particular, to the lessons that need to be learned from the Chilcot report. You referred to assistance for veterans. We know that 179 brave service personnel gave their lives in the Iraq war, but the family support package at that time meant that only two welfare officers were left at the headquarters. I know that that has changed and that steps have been taken to ensure that veterans are not forgotten. The Government send the brave people to war and so should be more than willing to step up to the plate and deliver for them. Prime Minister, what will be done as a result of the Chilcot inquiry to address the family support criteria and the very high suicide rates among veterans?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. The report states that huge improvements have since been undertaken to improve family support and liaison, but I suspect that we need to do even more in the area of mental health. That is one of the reasons why the Government have given that area such a boost.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is one of the most humane and, rightly, well-liked Members of the House—indeed, I think that he is almost loved in many parts. I say to him very   gently that my long-term ambition is to persuade him not to use the word “you” in exchanges in the House, but we will leave it there for today.

Alan Brown: With regard to lessons learned, can I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on the situation in Syria? The original proposal was for airstrikes against Assad, but later there was a vote for airstrikes against Daesh. Voices in the House today have said that it was the inaction the first time that left the chaos in Syria just now, which is just inconceivable. With regard to post-conflict planning, I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that there is a properly costed plan in place for post-conflict Syria, and one to which all foreign powers have signed up and pledged the right amount of financial support.

David Cameron: We have made some commitments to supporting a post-conflict reconstruction plan for Syria, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the two votes we had in this House. We won one of them, but I wish that we had won both. I think that taking action against Assad would have been a stronger response against his use of chemical weapons and a stronger response by the west. I think that it would have encouraged the legitimate opposition and that it could have helped bring the conflict to a more rapid closure. The second vote, which we did win, was right. Britain has played a very proud part in the progress that has been made in Syria, making sure that the people who directly threaten us in this country are being properly combated.

Kevin Brennan: Those of us who were here on 18 March 2003 will know that there were no moral certainties available that evening. As one of the 139 Labour MPs who voted against the war that night, I can say that I have always respected those who made a different decision based on what they had heard. What does the Prime Minister think is the lesson from Chilcot about our relationship with the United Nations and the way we acted on that occasion in relation to the United Nations Security Council?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Gentleman asks a very interesting question, because before now I always felt that one of the reasons for going to war was to try to uphold the authority of the United Nations, given that Saddam was in breach of so many of its resolutions. But Sir John Chilcot says very clearly that he thinks it undermined the United Nations, so I want to read that part of the report very carefully.

Neil Gray: I declare an interest, as my eldest brother served in both Iraq wars, and another still serves in our armed forces today. Above all else, we should today pay tribute to all those who served, whether they came home or sadly did not, and to their families.
I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to pages 121 and 122 of the executive summary, which relate to the delay in military preparation, a politically expedient decision by the then Prime Minister, and the subsequent deployment of forces earlier than anticipated and the  resulting lack of equipment. Does he agree that those decisions unnecessarily cost the lives of some of my brother’s colleagues, as there was insufficient time to overcome the shortfall in necessary war-fighting equipment?

David Cameron: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman’s family, through him, for their service in the past and currently. I cannot give him an answer now. I have read pages 121 and 122, but I want to study the report more carefully to see whether it really does say that the delay had the effect that he describes. Perhaps I can write to him about that.

Alison McGovern: I join all those in the House in paying tribute to our armed forces. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I will quote from the resignation speech of Robin Cook:
“Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 726.]
Does the Prime Minister agree that that statement is as true today as it was then, and that one response to this report must therefore be a deep commitment to the United Nations, to NATO and to somehow rebuilding our relationship with our European friends?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Lady that we should all want to be committed to a world of rules and strong institutions, but I think we all have to accept that there can be difficult occasions when—I am not referring here to Iraq specifically—if there is a veto by one Security Council member and we say, “We can only act when the UN sanctions it,” we are stuck with rules that lead us to take a potentially immoral decision not to act to stop a humanitarian catastrophe or suchlike. We have to be careful. Yes, we want institutions and rules, but we should reserve the ability to act when we think it is either in our national interest or in a humanitarian interest to do so.

Lisa Cameron: I must first declare an interest in that my husband has served in our armed forces. It is crucial for armed forces families to have the utmost faith in governmental procedures and in parliamentary scrutiny before they send their loved ones to war. Does the Prime Minister agree that the decisions made on Iraq have undermined their faith, and will he apologise to them for the failings highlighted in the report, in an effort to reach out and rebuild their trust?

David Cameron: I think that the best thing we can do is to make sure that when mistakes are made and when bad consequences follow, as was the case with Iraq and the failure to plan and the rest of it, reports such as this are commissioned, properly discussed and debated, and the lessons learned. That is the most important thing we can do, and that is something that this Government and the previous one, who commissioned the report, are committed to doing.

Imran Hussain: As a newly elected councillor, my very first motion before my council was to oppose this unjust war, and I want to reaffirm that position strongly today. We have found out today that the war was based on legality that was far from satisfactory, and on flawed intelligence. It resulted in  the deaths of 179 British service personnel and more than 100,000 innocent men, women and children, the displacement of more than 1 million people, and greater instability in the region. We can never again have a situation where we go blindly into a war that results in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. What measures will the Prime Minister immediately put in place, given the lessons we have learned from Chilcot?

David Cameron: We are going to study the report very carefully to see what other lessons can be learned, but some of the early lessons are about processes, procedures, legal advice, national security councils and the use of intelligence information. A lot of those have been learned, but as I have said there are still more things to be discovered, and I commit to making sure that we learn those lessons.

Stuart Donaldson: At 24 years old, I am the second youngest Member of this House. Many of the 179 service personnel who were killed in Iraq were under the age of 24, including 14 servicemen and women who were 19 or under. I commend their bravery and their sacrifice. What specific assurances can the Prime Minister give to the families of those brave young men and women that the disastrous decisions that led to their deaths will not be repeated and that those who made those decisions will be held to account?

David Cameron: First, I thank those families for the service and the sacrifice of their children. We should genuinely praise the work that everyone in our armed forces did. We have to separate some of the decision making, the lessons learned and the problems from the military action. These people were serving their country in a cause that had been sanctioned by this House of Commons, so we should not in any way denigrate their memory, because they were doing what they believed in, which was serving their country. The most important thing we can do for all their memories is to digest the report, learn the lessons and put in place better decision-making procedures for the future.

Lisa Nandy: It has been 13 years since Robin Cook returned to the Back Benches to campaign for a world order governed by rules. The worst possible tribute that this House could pay to him or, more importantly, to the very many servicemen and women and Iraqis killed and injured in this conflict would be to draw the wrong conclusions or, worse, to learn no lessons at all. As the Prime Minister prepares his own departure to the Back Benches, what advice will he give to his successor to ensure that we restore to Britain a foreign policy with an ethical dimension?

David Cameron: I think that our foreign policy should always have an ethical dimension and always has. The advice I would give to my successor is to build on the processes and procedures that we have put in place, so that we better handle intelligence information and legal advice, better discuss and debate these things in the National Security Council, and listen to expert opinion in the proper way. The worst lesson to learn would be to say that, because these things are difficult, we should withdraw from the world, fail to intervene  when it is in our interests to do so and retreat in the way that I have set out. That would be the wrong thing to do, and I do not think it is what Robin Cook would have wanted.

Owen Thompson: My constituent Ben Shaw is a veteran of the Iraq conflict, in which he was blinded. He will never be able to see his family again. Ben has been eagerly awaiting the publication of the Chilcot report, but he is concerned that the lessons will not be learned and that it might be brushed under the carpet. Will the Prime Minister give assurances to Ben as to what actions will be taken, including ensuring that veterans like him will be able to access the full report?

David Cameron: First, through the hon. Gentleman, may I thank Ben for his service to our country and for everything that he did? We must continue to help him throughout his life. Ministry of Defence Ministers have offered meetings with veterans, and they are going ahead. The assurance I can give is that I think we have already learned a lot of very important lessons. Whitehall is a very different place and the way in which decisions are taken is different, as is the use of legal advice. Do not underestimate the extent to which Whitehall has already taken on board so many of the lessons and changed its practices and culture. Clearly, there will be more to do, and that is why we should study the report and have a two-day debate.

Greg Mulholland: I pay tribute to the 179 brave servicemen and women who lost their lives, including Corporal Matthew Cornish from Otley, whose loss is still felt today in Otley and Pool-in-Wharfedale.
We have heard the Prime Minister make some powerful and courageous statements, including on Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday, but I have to say to him, in response to his last major statement in his role, that today we have heard equivocation and we have not had the acceptance that this country needs and demands. There will be dismay, frankly, at some of today’s contributions, which have sought, even now, to suggest that this was not a terrible mistake. Surely the first rule in politics is to accept when you have done something wrong. A Prime Minister, a Government and a Parliament should be prepared to accept a mistake, and if this House does not accept that the invasion of Iraq was a disastrous mistake, we have learned nothing whatsoever.

David Cameron: I have tried to be careful today to recognise that this was the act of a previous Government, and it is for them principally to explain why they took the decisions they did. I have also tried to be careful because this is not my report; it is Sir John Chilcot’s report, and the first thing we have to do is to read it carefully and to take into account what it finds. I have tried very faithfully in my statement to reflect what he says and the way he says it, with all the nuances, rather than simply to rip out some punchy bits that either damn or praise the then Government, because I do not think that that is my responsibility. My responsibility is to handle the publication, to draw out the lessons, which I think I have done, and to let others who were responsible at the time account for themselves.

Diana R. Johnson: On a practical level, the report sets out that it is very difficult for intelligence to be assessed by Members of Parliament. Currently, intelligence is shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee only after the event; it is not shared during current operations. Two years ago, when the ISC was being reformed, the Opposition tabled an amendment to allow, in exceptional circumstances, intelligence to be shared with the ISC for current engagements and situations. In the light of today’s report, does the Prime Minister think it would be worth revisiting that suggestion and giving the ISC the opportunity to have access to intelligence in exceptional circumstances such as this country being on the brink of war?

David Cameron: What the hon. Lady is asking for is quite difficult. The process should be that Ministers take action on the advice of officials and on the advice of intelligence that is carefully corralled by the Joint Intelligence Committee. Then we have to account to Parliament for the decisions that we take. On occasion, it would be right for the Joint Intelligence Committee or the Government to put some of that intelligence in front of Parliament, as I think we did in the cases of Libya and Syria. By its very nature, the idea of sharing secret intelligence on a much wider basis will be very difficult, and I do not want to promise to do that. The ISC is there to scrutinise decisions that have been taken, rather than pre-emptively to review a decision that is about to be taken, so we do need to get our ducks in a row. If we try to muddle that, we will get ourselves into a muddle.

Chris Stephens: My thoughts today are with Mrs Rose Gentle whose son Gordon was killed in Iraq at 18 years of age. There was   a campaign for this inquiry and it has waited a long time for it to report. The Prime Minister said in his statement that sending
“our brave troops on to the battlefield without the right equipment was unacceptable.”
I agree with that, but, as the last Member to be called in this debate, may I join other hon. Members and ask the Prime Minister to reflect further? Does he not appreciate that the state should apologise to those military families for their sons and daughters being sent into a war without the correct equipment, and will he take this opportunity to apologise to those military families?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that providing the correct military equipment is an absolute obligation on Government, and huge steps have been taken in the past few years to make that happen. On the responsibility for apologies and all the rest of it, the people who were in Government who took these decisions are still alive and able to answer the criticisms in the report. This is slightly different from the situation over, for instance, Bloody Sunday or Hillsborough. This report is about a set of Government decisions that were taken, and the people responsible are still around. It is very easy for a Prime Minister to stand up and make an apology and all the rest of it, but it is not appropriate for me to do so today, because the people who made these decisions are still around. That is why I have chosen to speak in the way that I have.

John Bercow: I thank the Prime Minister and all colleagues who have taken part in these exchanges.



JUNIOR DOCTORS CONTRACT

Jeremy Hunt: In May, the Government and NHS employers reached an historic agreement with the British Medical Association on the new contract for junior doctors after more than three years of negotiations and several days of damaging strike action. That agreement was strongly endorsed as a good deal for junior doctors by the leader of the BMA’s junior doctors committee, Dr Johann Malawana, and was supported publicly by the vast majority of medical royal colleges. However, it was rejected yesterday in a ratification ballot: 58% voted against the contract, so, on the basis of a 68% turnout, around a third of serving junior doctors actively voted against the agreement.
It is worth outlining key elements of the agreement that was voted on. The agreement does indeed help the Government to deliver their seven-day NHS manifesto commitment, but it also does much more. It reduces the maximum hours junior doctors can be asked to work, introduces a new post in every trust to make sure the hours asked of junior doctors are safe, makes rostering more child and family-friendly, and helps women who take maternity leave to catch up with their peers. The president of the Royal College of Physicians, who had opposed our previous proposals, stated publicly:
“If I were a trainee doctor now, I would vote ‘yes’ in the junior doctor referendum.”
Unfortunately, because of the vote, we are now left in a no-man’s land, which, if it continues, can only damage the NHS.
An elected Government whose main aim is to improve the safety and quality of care for patients have come up against a union that has stirred up anger among its own members that it is now unable to pacify. I was not a fan of the tactics used by the BMA, but, to its credit, its leader, Johann Malawana, did, in the end, negotiate a deal and work hard to get support for it. Now that he has resigned, it is not clear whether anyone can deliver the support of BMA members for any negotiated settlement.
Protracted uncertainty precisely when we grapple with the enormous consequences of leaving the EU can only be damaging for those working in the NHS and for the patients who depend on it. Last night, Professor Dame Sue Bailey, president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, said that the NHS and junior doctors needed to move on from this dispute and that if the Government proceed with the new contract it should be implemented in a phased way that allowed time to learn from any teething problems. After listening to this advice and carefully considering the equalities impact of the new contract, I have this morning decided that the only realistic way to end this impasse is to proceed with the phased introduction of the exact contract that was negotiated, agreed and supported by the BMA leadership.
The contract will be introduced from October this year for more senior obstetrics trainees; then in November and December for foundation year 1 doctors taking up new posts and foundation year 2 doctors on the same rotas as their current contracts expire. More specialties such as paediatrics, psychiatry and pathology, as well as   surgical trainees, will transition in the same way to the new contract between February and April next year, with remaining trainees by October 2017.
This is a difficult decision to make. Many people will call on me to return to negotiations with the BMA, and I say to them: we have been talking, or trying to talk, for well over three years. There is no consensus around a new contract and, after yesterday’s vote, it is not clear whether any further discussions could create one. However, the agreement negotiated in May is better for junior doctors and better for the NHS than the original contract that we planned to introduce in March. Rather than try to wind the clock back to the March contract, we will not change any of the new terms agreed with the BMA.
It is also important to note that, even though we are proceeding without consensus, this decision is not a rejection of the legitimate concerns of many junior doctors about their working conditions. Junior doctors are some of the hardest working staff in the NHS, working some of the longest and most unsocial hours, including many weekends. They have many concerns, for example, about rota gaps and rostering practices. In the May ACAS agreement, NHS employers agreed to work with the BMA to monitor the implementation of the contract and improve rostering practice for junior doctors. Last month, at the NHS Confederation’s annual conference, I set out my expectation that all hospitals should invest in modern e-rostering systems by the end of next year as part of their efforts to improve the way that they deploy staff. I hope that the BMA will continue to participate in discussions about all these areas.
Furthermore, this decision is not a rejection of the concerns of foundation year doctors who often feel most disconnected in that period of their training before they have chosen a specialty. Again, we will continue to make progress in addressing those concerns under the leadership of Sheona MacLeod at Health Education England, and we will continue to invite the BMA to attend those meetings.
We will also continue with a separate process to look at how we can improve the working lives of junior doctors more broadly, which will be led by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). I very much hope that the BMA will continue to participate in that process as well.
We will not let up on efforts to eliminate the gender pay gap. Today, I can announce that I will commission an independent report on how to reduce and eliminate that gap in the medical profession. I will announce shortly who will be leading that important piece of work, which I hope to have initial considerations from in September.
Most importantly, this is not a decision to stop any further talks. I welcome Dr Ellen McCourt to her position as new interim leader of the junior doctors committee. I had constructive talks with her during the negotiations. Although we do need to proceed with the implementation of the new contract to end uncertainty, my door remains open to her or whoever takes over her post substantively in September. I am willing to discuss how the new contract is implemented, extra-contractual issues such as training and rostering, and the contents of future contracts.
To me personally and to everyone in this House as well as many others, it is a matter of profound regret that, at a time of so many other challenges, the BMA was unable to secure majority support for the deal that it agreed with the Government and NHS employers, but we are where we are.
I believe the course of action outlined in this statement is the best way to help the NHS to move on from this long-running contractual dispute and to focus our efforts on providing the safest, highest-quality care for patients. I commend the statement to the House.

Diane Abbott: The NHS is only as strong as the morale of its staff, and the rejection of this contract by the junior doctors sadly reveals that morale and trust in the Government are at rock bottom. Yesterday, to mark the 68th anniversary of the NHS, I visited my local hospital, Homerton University hospital, and met some of the wonderful nurses. One of their main concerns was the abolition of the bursary, but they were also genuinely worried that NHS staff were no longer valued. The Secretary of State must accept that his handling of the junior doctor dispute has exacerbated this feeling among all NHS staff.
I have sat in this Chamber and heard the Secretary of State say that junior doctors have not read the new contract, do not understand the new contract, or have been bamboozled by their leadership, but now that the junior doctors have rejected a renegotiated contract recommended by their leadership, he must begin to understand that his handling of this dispute has contributed to the impasse. There should be no suggestion that the junior doctors’ decision is somehow illegitimate. The turnout in the ballot was higher than in the general election in 2015.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will not let up on efforts to eliminate the gender pay gap and that he will commission an independent report on how to reduce and eliminate that gap, and look at shared parental leave as well. That is an important concern among doctors. I also welcome the fact that the imposition of the contract will be phased, but at this time of general instability, I urge the Government to reconsider imposing the contract at all.
It has not helped for the Government to treat junior doctors as the enemy within. It has not helped junior doctors’ morale that it was implied at one time that the only barrier to a seven-day NHS was their reluctance to work at weekends, when so many of them already work unsocial hours, sacrificing family life in the process. I am glad that the Secretary of State acknowledged today that junior doctors are some of the hardest working staff in the NHS, working some of the longest and most unsocial hours, including many weekends, but the vote to reject the contract is a rejection of the Government’s previous approach.
The Secretary of State knows that the BMA remains opposed to the imposition of any contract, believing that imposing a contract that has not been agreed is inherently unfair and an indictment of the Secretary of State’s handling of the situation. The junior doctors  committee is meeting today to decide how it will proceed. Labour Members look forward to hearing the outcome of that meeting and how we can best continue to support the junior doctors.
Public opinion is not on the Government’s side. It is evident that the public will have faith in their doctors long after they have lost faith in this or any other Government. It is not too late to change course. The Government need urgently to address the recruitment and retention crisis and scrap the contract. Although I appreciate that the contract has been in negotiation  for many years, the Government should give talks with  the junior doctors one more chance. If they crush the morale of NHS staff, they crush the efficacy of the NHS itself.

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome the hon. Lady to her place for the first statement to which she has responded and welcome her on the whole measured tone, with one or two exceptions. I will reply directly to the points she made.
First, the hon. Lady maintains the view expressed by her predecessor, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who is in her place this afternoon, that somehow the Government’s handling of the dispute is to blame. We have heard that narrative a lot in the past year, but I say with the greatest of respect for the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I do understand that she is new to the post—that that narrative has been comprehensively disproved by the leaked WhatsApp messages that were exchanged between members of the junior doctors committee earlier this year.
We now know that, precisely when the official Opposition were saying that the Government were being intransigent, the BMA had no interest in doing a deal. In February, at the ACAS talks, the junior doctors’ aim was simply to
“play the political game of…looking reasonable”—
their words, not ours. We also know that they wanted to provoke the Government into imposing a contract, as part of a plan to
“tie the Department of Health up in knots for…months”.
In contrast to public claims that the dispute was about patient safety, we know that, in their own words,
“the only real red line”
was pay. With the benefit of that knowledge, the hon. Lady should be careful about maintaining that the Government have not wanted to try to find a solution. We have had more than 70 meetings in the past year and we have been trying to find a solution for more than four years.
The question then arises whether we should negotiate or proceed with the introduction of the new contracts. Let me say plainly and directly that if I believed negotiations would work, that is exactly what I would do. The reason I do not think they will work is that it has become clear that many of the issues upsetting junior doctors are in fact nothing to do with the contract. Let me quote a statement posted this morning by one of the junior doctors’ leaders and a fierce opponent of the Government, Dr Reena Aggarwal:
“I am no apologist for the Government but I do believe that many of the issues that are exercising junior doctors are extra-contractual. This contract was never intended to solve every  complaint and unhappiness, and I am not sure any single agreement would have achieved universal accord with the junior doctor body.”
The Government’s biggest opponents—in a way, the biggest firebrands in the BMA—supported the deal and were telling their members that it was a good deal, which got rid of some of the unfairnesses in the current contract and was better for women and so on. If the junior doctors are not prepared to believe even them, there is no way we will be able to achieve consensus.
If the hon. Lady wants to stand up and say that we should scrap the contract, she will be saying that we should not proceed with a deal that reduces the maximum hours a junior doctor can be asked to work, introduces safeguards to make sure that rostering is safe and boosts opportunities for women, disabled people and doctors with caring responsibilities—a deal that was supported by nearly every royal college. If the alternative from Labour is to do nothing, we would be passing on the opportunity to make real improvements that will make a real difference to the working lives of junior doctors.
The hon. Lady and I have a couple of the more challenging jobs that anyone can do in this Chamber. She has been in the House for much longer than I, so she will know that. The litmus test in all the difficult decisions we face is whether we do the right thing for patients and for our vulnerable constituents, who desperately need a seven-day service. The Government are determined to make sure that happens.

Sarah Wollaston: I welcome today’s statement and thank the Secretary of State for dealing with many of the extra-contractual issues that have blighted the lives of junior doctors. I join him in regretting the outcome of the ballot. Like my right hon. Friend, I welcome Doctor Ellen McCourt to her post. I know that my right hon. Friend will work constructively with the junior doctors committee to try to resolve the outstanding issues. In proceeding in a careful, measured way with the imposition of the contract, will he work to reassure the public that if patient safety issues arise during that process, he will deal with them?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her measured tone and for being an independent voice throughout the dispute. I spoke to Dr Ellen McCourt earlier this afternoon. I appreciate that she is in a very difficult situation, but I wanted to stress to her that, as I told the House this afternoon, my door remains open for talks about absolutely anything and that I am keen to find a way forward through dialogue. I had lots of discussions with Dr McCourt when we were negotiating the agreement in May, and I know that she approached those negotiations in a positive spirit.
We have set in place processes, and that is one of the reasons why Professor Bailey recommended phased implementation—so that if there are any safety concerns, we can address them as we go along. The Minister with responsibility for care quality, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, is leading a process that will keep looking at the issues to do with the quality of life of junior doctors. NHS Employers is leading a process that will look in detail at how the contract is implemented. Absolutely, the point of the changes is to make care safer for patients; we will continue to keep an eye on this to make sure that it does so.

Philippa Whitford: I, too, am disappointed by the outcome of the ballot yesterday. It has to be recognised that it reflects a real desperation and unhappiness among junior doctors, who are dealing with increased demand and pressure. They have felt that, at times, the tone of the negotiations has left a lot to be desired. The threat of imposition was there from the start, and they felt that hanging over them.
I welcome several things in the statement, and I absolutely welcome its very measured tone. I welcome the attempt to tackle the gender pay gap, to deal with unhappy foundationers and to limit hours. I would say that junior doctors’ biggest concern is rota gaps. In some specialities, the rate is as high as one in four, so one doctor covers the role of two. That is a real patient safety issue, and patient safety is meant to be the whole point of the contract. I welcome the fact that the contract will be phased in, and I call on the Secretary of State to ensure absolutely that, as this goes forward, he will learn, because junior doctors’ concern is about how we spread a short-staffed workforce across more days. I called for the contract to be phased in through a trial, and it is being phased in, but in a different way. We need to recognise the pain that the vote represents.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive comments, which are born of her NHS experience. She is right: we are phasing in the contract carefully to make sure that we learn lessons. She is absolutely right to talk about rota gaps. Unfortunately, the problem of rota gaps cannot be solved at a stroke on signing a contract; it has to do with making sure that we have a big enough supply of doctors in the NHS to fill those rota gaps. We now have much greater transparency about the safety levels that are appropriate in different hospitals; that is one of the lessons that we learned post Mid Staffs. We are investing more in the NHS in this Parliament. We recruited an extra 9,300 doctors in the last Parliament and we are increasing our investment in the NHS in this Parliament, so that we can continue to boost the doctor workforce in the NHS. In the long run, that is how we will deal with the rota gap issue; but unfortunately, that cannot be done overnight.

Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the only responsible decision that he could take, in the interests of the service and patients, to bring this sad, extraordinarily long episode to an end. I also congratulate him on being conciliatory, because he made concessions in May to produce the final contract, and now he is phasing it in, in its negotiated form. I hope that we get back to a peaceful settlement. Does he agree that the surprising fact that so many dedicated junior doctors were prepared to take industrial action over rather ill-defined problems with the contract shows that there is a problem with morale in the service? Will he give an undertaking that the very welcome steps that he has announced today to try to address the wider issues will last not just a few months, until the dust settles on this dispute, but will be part of a continuous process to make sure that we restore to the service the morale and dedication on which we all know the NHS relies?

Jeremy Hunt: As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend speaks with great wisdom and experience. He is absolutely right to say that tackling the morale deficit in the NHS  has to be a key priority. That is why we have to recognise that for doctors—particularly junior doctors starting out on their medical careers—the most depressing and dispiriting thing of all is when they cannot give the patients in front of them the care that they want to. That is why we are looking at a number of things to make it easier for doctors to improve the quality of care. One of the things that is particularly challenging and that we in this House have to think about and discuss a lot more is how difficult doctors and nurses find it to speak out if they see poor care, or if they or a colleague make a mistake, because they are frightened of litigation, a General Medical Council referral, or disciplinary action by their trust. The problem is that people then do not go through the learning processes necessary to prevent those mistakes happening again. The key is creating a supportive environment, in which learning can really happen, in hospitals.

Heidi Alexander: If I believed that the benefits for patients of pushing ahead with this contract outweighed the impact that its imposition will have on junior doctor morale, recruitment and retention, I would support the Health Secretary, but I do not believe that. Can he tell the House which clause of which Act of Parliament gives him the power to force hospitals to introduce the contract? If he cannot tell us that, can he outline the legislative basis on which Health Education England could withhold funding from trusts that choose not to proceed with it?

Jeremy Hunt: Health Education England is absolutely clear that it has to run national training programmes, and that is why it has to have standard contracts across the country. As the hon. Lady knows well from her previous role on the Front Bench, in reality foundation trusts have the legal right to set their own terms and conditions, but they currently follow a national contract; that is their choice, but because they do that, I used the phrase “introduction of a new contract” this afternoon. I expect, on the basis of current practice, that the contract will be adopted throughout the NHS.
I enjoyed working with the hon. Lady when she was shadow Health Secretary, but on this issue, she was quite wrong, because she saw the WhatsApp leaks, which revealed that the British Medical Association had no willingness or desire for a negotiated settlement in February, precisely when she was saying at the Dispatch Box that I was the one being intransigent. She gave a running commentary on the dispute at every stage, but when those leaks happened, she said absolutely nothing. She should set the record straight and apologise to the House for getting the issue totally wrong.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the patience that he has shown on this matter, and on the deal that was agreed back in May—it is a good deal. Apropos of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who speaks for the Opposition, does the Secretary of State agree that it is indeed important to maintain morale in the health service? We need to be very careful about striking special deals for one particular part of the workforce, and the perception that that might be unfair. Would he  further agree that we need to avoid the temptation of addressing every single grievance of a particular workforce? That is more properly within the bailiwick of managers locally than national contracts.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend obviously speaks from experience and very sensibly on this issue. In this House, of course, we think about the actions of politicians, Ministers and so on, but for doctors in a hospital, the most important component of their morale is the way that they are treated by their direct line manager. One of the things that worries me most in the NHS, looking at the staff survey, is that 19% of NHS staff talk about being bullied in the last year. That is ridiculously high. We need to think about why that is. The reality is that it is very tough on the frontline at the moment. There are a lot of people walking through the front doors of our NHS organisations, and we need to do everything that we can to try to support doctors and nurses, who are doing a very challenging job.

Paula Sherriff: Instead of blaming the BMA, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that yesterday’s result was indicative of the fact that a significant proportion of medical staff have lost confidence in him? More than ever, running the NHS requires the good will of its staff. How does he intend to restore that confidence?

Jeremy Hunt: Actually, in my statement I took the trouble to praise BMA leaders. Admittedly, at the outset I did not agree with their tactics at all, but they did then have the courage to negotiate a deal and try really hard to get their members to accept it. I respect them for doing that. Part of the problem was that in the early stages of the dispute, there was a lot of misinformation going around. There were a lot of doctors who thought, for example, that their salary was going to be cut by about a third. That was never on the table and never the Government’s intention. A lot of doctors thought that they were going to be asked to work longer hours. That, too, was the opposite of what we wanted to do. I am afraid that that created a very bitter atmosphere. I simply say that, in the end, the best way to restore morale is to support doctors in giving better care to their patients, and that is what the NHS transformation plan is all about and what we are working on.

Peter Bottomley: Around 10 years ago the mishandled introduction of MMC—modernising medical careers—and the medical training application service started some of the problems for junior doctors. I pay tribute to the BMA who, in the discussions up to May, helped to agree with NHS England employers changes to the proposed contract, which were to the benefit of doctors in training? I say to the Secretary of State and, through him, to the employers that I hope they will pay attention to the extra-contractual issues which are of concern to doctors, and that the BMA will catch up with the rest of us in saying that we rely on them and others in hospitals to give a good, safe service to patients. They need to work together with everybody else and we will support them in doing that.

Jeremy Hunt: I am absolutely prepared to give that assurance and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right. We can look at MTAS and such changes.  We can go even further back and look at the introduction of the European working time directive—strange to bring that up in the current context—and the shift system, which sensibly reduced some of the crazy hours that junior doctors were being asked to work, but unfortunately at the same time got rid of the “old firm” system which gave junior doctors a sense of collegiality, meant that there was a consultant whom they knew and related to, and made their training a lot more rewarding and satisfying. That was disrupted when we introduced the shift system and the maximum hours limits. We need to think about—and we are doing some very important work on this—how we could recreate some of that sense of collegiality, which is particularly missing for junior doctors in the first two years of their training, before they have joined a specialty.

Diana R. Johnson: With morale among junior doctors at rock bottom, and Hull having an historic problem with recruitment and retention, what particular initiatives is the Secretary of State going to use to allow the health service in Hull to have the number of doctors that we need to function properly and provide the high-quality care that we all want to see?

Jeremy Hunt: There is one very good doctor in the Hull A&E department, and that is Dr Ellen McCourt, who has taken over as leader of the junior doctors committee—at least, I imagine she is very good; I have been very impressed every time I have met her. There are particular pressures at Hull, and as the hon. Lady knows we have had management changes. So far we have not seen the improvement in performance that we would like. I am aware that there are big issues with the infrastructure— the physical buildings. We will continue to work with the NHS locally and with the trust to try to improve the situation. She is right to bring it to my attention.

Oliver Heald: I join my right hon. Friend in expressing sadness at the decision of the vote. He will remember that on previous occasions I have raised with him some family-friendly aspects of the lives of junior doctors. Does he agree that it is important to look at the training situation, where a couple can be sent to different towns many miles apart; the rostering, which can make family life difficult; and some of the problems of returners to work, whose training perhaps needs to be properly considered? Will he confirm that he will continue to look at these issues and that, as the monitoring and phasing goes ahead, he will try to address them?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. and learned Friend is correct to have raised that before and I can reassure him that we have subsequently started a very big piece of work to look at those exact issues. The difficulty is that throughout their training junior doctors are rotated every six months. That is particularly disruptive to family life or, for example, if they have a partner and one is sent to Sheffield and the other to Bristol. We are seeing what we can do to deal with that. The other issue that we are looking at is that of people who for family reasons discover that they have a caring responsibility, maybe for children or for a parent with dementia, and want to switch to a specialty that may not have quite so many  unsocial hours, and whether it is possible to novate their training across from one specialty to another, which does not happen at present.

Liz McInnes: We are all congratulating each other on the measured tone of this debate, but Dr Johann Malawana has said in very measured tones:
“Given the result, both sides must look again at the proposals and there should be no transition to a new contract until further talks take place.”
Will the Health Secretary commit to hold further talks in order to avoid further conflict and the possibility that he may provoke further strike action if he does not? If he provokes further industrial action among the junior doctors, the blame will lie fairly and squarely at his open door.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the hon. Lady the words that Dr Malawana actually said:
“I will happily state that I think this is a good deal.”
He talked about junior doctors benefiting from
“massively strengthened areas of safety precautions…equalities improvements, improvements to whistleblowing protection and appropriate pay for unsocial hours.”
He thought this deal was a big step forward. As I said, if I thought that there was any prospect of further negotiations leading to a consensus that could get the support of the BMA membership, that is what I would be doing, but my honest assessment of the situation—given that the people who most strongly opposed the Government recommended accepting this deal and still they were not listened to—is that there is no such prospect, and I therefore need to take the difficult decision that I have taken this afternoon.

Helen Whately: There has been a negotiation, the Secretary of State has listened to the concerns of junior doctors, we now have a better contract, and we heard today that there will a phased introduction of it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that junior doctors now need to move forward and that they should take up the offer to be involved in work to improve the experience of junior doctors in training? We know that junior doctors do not feel valued. They should feel valued. They need to play their part in making sure that they are valued.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to say that. One of the things that is clear to me is that the reason that the May deal is better than the deal that we were going to introduce in February is because of the involvement of the BMA and the BMA leaders in telling us the concerns of junior doctors at the coalface, and the specific niggles and annoyances, many of which we were able to sort out very straightforwardly. I strongly hope that junior doctors will remain in all the discussions that we have, so that we try to get even better solutions.

Steve Rotheram: At the start of his statement, the Secretary of State used sophistry to try to call into question the result of the ballot, by implying that 58% did not provide legitimacy for the rejection of the Government contract offer. Does he regret using smoke and mirrors, and does he agree that if his flawed methodology were used for  other electoral processes, he would not be sitting in this House, there would not be a Tory Government, and we would still be in the EU?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what I said. I am clear on this. I said in my statement that 58% voted against the contract, and I accept that that was a majority of BMA members. I stated the fact that on a 68% turnout, around a third of serving junior doctors actively voted against the contract. That is factually correct.

Maggie Throup: I thank my right hon. Friend for all his efforts in agreeing a deal that was acceptable to the junior doctors’ leaders. In effect, the junior doctors have now voted against their own trade union. I welcome the way forward that the Secretary of State has outlined, but will he reassure the House that patients and their safety will always be his No. 1 priority?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to give that assurance. One of the most exciting things in the NHS, despite a lot of the doom and gloom in the headlines, is that we are seeing a transformation in safety culture. Even though we are now doing about 4,500 more operations every day, the proportion of patients being harmed is down by about a third in just three years. I think there is a transformation, but of course there is a lot more to do, as I am no doubt going to hear.

Andrea Jenkyns: I am shocked that we are here yet again. If we look at the history, 90% of the contract has been renegotiated. There have been years of negotiations. This contract is far safer for patients. Regardless of what the Opposition say, it cannot be laid at the Secretary of State’s door if the junior doctors decide to take strike action. We should stop using patients as pawns and put patients first. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his perseverance. Does he agree that, through its relentless pursuit of partisan politics, the BMA has backed itself into a corner and put patients at risk?

Jeremy Hunt: The way patients have suffered—there have been over 20,000 cancelled operations during this process—has been very disappointing. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to campaign on issues of hygiene and cleanliness, which lead to so many tragedies when they are not properly attended to. I hope we can move on now. I do believe that, despite the disappointing rejection of this deal in the ballot, some trust has been established between the leaders of the BMA and the Government, and we have had a productive dialogue. We have made a number of changes to the May contract since announcing it—things that they suggested and that we agreed to. I would like to continue that process and build that trust.

Huw Merriman: Having been somewhat of a burden on the NHS myself over the months as a result of playing football—unsuccessfully—with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in December, I spent an hour on the day of the all-out strike talking to the junior doctors who treated me. They asked me if I could tell the  Secretary of State and the BMA that there is a need and a desire for more talks. May I thank the Secretary of State for showing flexibility? He does a difficult job extremely well, and it is appreciated on the Government Benches. I am absolutely saddened that a deal on this contract has not been brokered in the way we thought it would in May. Will he ensure that those junior doctors who move on to this contract are made well aware of how unpopular the previous contract was in the medical profession and that this contract’s terms are well sold so that junior doctors are reassured about them?

Jeremy Hunt: I am more than happy to do that. I think that the vast majority of junior doctors think that what has happened is a tragedy and are keen to move on. I hope they take seriously my assurances this afternoon that we will be monitoring every stage of the implementation of this contract, and if there are further things that we can improve, we will do exactly that, because we want a contract that is good for them and good for patients.

Robert Jenrick: Weeks like the ones we have just lived through put other matters into perspective. With that in mind, I am sure the Secretary of State will agree with me that it is absolutely right for patients and the country that this dispute ends now. I was delighted to hear that he is now reluctantly going to move to phase in the imposition of the contract. Will he, in his usual conciliatory manner, now turn a page on this dispute, end it completely and build a new relationship with junior doctors and the new interim head of the BMA’s junior doctors committee?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks very wisely. I would certainly very much like to do that. It does take two to tango, but the Government certainly want to do everything they can to work with all the leaders of the different bodies in the medical profession, partly for the reason my hon. Friend gave—that the country is very preoccupied with even bigger issues—but partly because there is so much pressure on the NHS frontline, and it is just counterproductive to exhaust so much energy on these disputes when we could talk our way around them and avoid them.

Flick Drummond: I am always last, but I am very grateful for being asked to speak. Does the Secretary of State have any indication of how many junior doctors actually read the contract, rather than relying on the BMA or rumours? The junior doctors I have talked to have not read it, and one said it was too long.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her interest—it is last but not least, for sure, in her case. Many junior doctors are now aware of the bones of the contract. I am sure some of them have not read it, just as others have. However, I think the issue has been that a lot of them have read it and have felt that it does not answer every single problem they face today as a junior doctor. Unfortunately, there is no contract that can solve every single pressure they face at the stroke of a pen, and I suspect that that is why a number of them voted to reject the contract. What I would say to them is that we have a contract that is an improvement on what they had before, so let us go with that and try to address the other issues as best and as quickly as we can.

Points of Order

Andrew Slaughter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 May, I was granted an urgent question on safety in custody and violence in prisons, following a walkout by officers at Wormwood Scrubs prison in my constituency on health and safety grounds and assaults on two officers. I was assured by the Government that they took these matters very seriously, but I am told by the Prison Officers Association when I met it last week that the problems continue at Wormwood Scrubs. Today, the BBC has reported that there have been five walkouts over the past five months, three of which have been reported for first time only today. I fully understand why the Government would not have made a statement today, given the other, pressing business, but what can you do to assist me in getting the Secretary of State or another Minister to come to the House  to make a statement on this issue, which is not only very serious but now looks as if it is endemic in our prisons?

Natascha Engel: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a point of order, but he has put the matter on the record, and those on the Treasury Bench will have listened. I am sure he will be here at business questions tomorrow, when he can ask the Leader of the House for a statement.

Alison Thewliss: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, in my question to the Prime Minister on tax credits, I specifically mentioned the two-child policy and the rape clause. I am sure he did not mean to mislead the House in his   answer, but he said that the Scottish Parliament would be getting specific powers on welfare to cover those particular issues. In fact, that is not the case. The Scottish Parliament is getting only 15% of welfare powers, and the power to modify the tax credit system is not among those. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you could obtain an answer from the Prime Minister to put the record straight.

Natascha Engel: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. Again, it is not, strictly speaking,  a point of order, but she has put the matter on the record. I am sure, if the Prime Minister has heard and would like to correct the record, there will be a way of doing so.

BILL PRESENTED

Terms of withdrawal from EU (Referendum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Mr David Lammy, Helen Hayes, Sir Alan Meale, Mark Durkan, Chris Davies, John Pugh, Louise Haigh and Ann Clwyd presented a Bill to require the holding of a referendum to endorse the United Kingdom and Gibraltar exit package proposed by HM Government for withdrawal from the EU, or to decide to remain a member, prior to the UK giving notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 46).

OPPOSITION DAY - [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

EU NATIONALS IN THE UK

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
That this House notes that there are approximately three million nationals of other EU member states living in the UK; further notes that many more UK nationals are related to nationals of other EU member states; rejects the view that these men, women and children should be used as bargaining chips in negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU; and calls on the Government to commit with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain.
This debate directly affects the lives of millions of people living in this country, so let me start by inviting the House to join me in sending a very clear message to the EU nationals living in the UK, which I think they need to hear right now from this Parliament: you are truly valued members of our society, and you are very welcome here.
Let us remember that the people affected are the mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, and grandmas and grandads of British children such as mine. They are our friends and our neighbours; valued members of local communities; doctors and nurses who look after us when we are ill; teachers who educate our children; and people who run companies employing thousands of British workers. To throw any doubt over their right to remain here in the future is to undermine family life, the stability of our public services, our economy and our society.
But, sadly, that is what the Home Secretary has done. Instead of showing leadership and sending out an immediate message of reassurance in the aftermath of Brexit, she has added to the uncertainty that many people were already experiencing, and she has left them feeling like bargaining chips in the Brussels negotiations.

Keith Vaz: I share my right hon. Friend’s sentiments absolutely. The problem is that the Home Secretary has made certain statements, and other members of the Government have made other statements, and it is that uncertainty that is the problem. If there was a clear statement about the intent to keep EU nationals here without any further discussion, that would help to deal with the problems we have at the moment. It is that uncertainty that has led to a lot of problems in local communities, which we heard about in the debate last night.

Andy Burnham: I could not agree more with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. People have been left feeling uncertain. As I will say later, that has created a hostile climate on the streets of our communities, and this is not what people are looking for in someone who seeks to lead our nation. It will not be lost on people that, for the second time in three days, the Home Secretary has failed to come to the House to clear up the confusion. I think we were entitled to hear directly from her, having called this important debate.

Oliver Heald: I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the European nationals who work in Britain and do such valuable jobs, 52,000 of them in the NHS. Does he agree that we need an orderly settlement as part of this negotiation with the EU? At the moment, there are 1.2 million British people out there in the EU, working in other parts of it, and, no doubt, doing valuable work as well. At the moment, there is no risk to those who are living there or here until the final agreements are reached.

Andy Burnham: I will come on to that point. However, I do not see why, in seeking to secure the position of British nationals overseas, we should undermine people living here, paying taxes here, and working here.

Stella Creasy: Let us put some real people into this picture. In the past week alone, I have spoken to an Italian grandmother who has been here for 46 years and is devastated at the thought that she may have to return to her home country, a Dutch DJ who makes our street parties in Walthamstow swing, a Danish climate change scientist who is helping to tackle a problem that faces us all, and an Irish artist who makes beautiful but challenging sculptures for our community. At the same time, my community has faced a spike in hate crime. Today we need to send a message, do we not, that this hate crime—this division—is not orderly and has no place in our society, but these people do, and they are very welcome here.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have read in The Guardian the views of some health professionals talking about how they feel. An Allied Healthcare professional—not a DJ—who is Dutch said this:
“Since the referendum, I wish I had not come to the UK. Half the population does not want me here. I am tearful at times. If I had the chance I would leave now.”
It is not true: half the population does not want these people to leave, but that is obviously how they have been left to feel.

John Redwood: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this motion, and I agree that we need to offer reassurance. Does he agree that, assuming the motion passes today—because I get the distinct impression that it will not be opposed—that is a great offer of reassurance from this whole Parliament?

Andy Burnham: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I do not know what the Government’s intention is, but if we were to follow the logic of what we heard from the Immigration Minister at the Dispatch Box on Monday, they will oppose the motion. We will see. Tonight this House can remove the uncertainty from the people my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) described, sending them a message that they are welcome here in our country, and that is precisely what we should do.

Andrew Slaughter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the comments that the Home Secretary has made outside the context of Brexit represent one of the most extreme statements made by any politician? They have caused fear not only among the 15% of my  constituents who are EU nationals, but the 46% of my constituents who were born outside the UK, on the basis that, “If they can say this about one group, they can say it about others.” I have had a bigger postbag on this issue than on any other issue ever. I hope that we get the result my right hon. Friend is asking for today, because this is very serious stuff.

Andy Burnham: It is an abdication of leadership for the Home Secretary not to be here to hear what my hon. Friend has said. One can only speculate that she made those comments in a bid to woo the grassroots of the Tory party in her current situation. I do not know, because she is not here to contradict me. She could have done if she wanted to, but she is not here to do so. I do not know whether her comments were made with that in mind, but I do know that they have caused a lot of worry for people, as my hon. Friend says. They are in danger of making us look to the rest of the world like a very different country from the one that welcomed the world to London 2012 just four short years ago: a very different Britain from the decent, open-minded, fair country that we are perceived to be, or have been perceived to be, around the world.

Karen Buck: There are 36,000 EU residents living in the London borough of Westminster, and my postbag has also been flooded with correspondence on this. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hard to overstate how disappointed and worried many of these people are at the message that is being sent out and the lack of clarity? I hope he can reassure one constituent who wrote to me this week to say that she has lived in her “beloved London” for 14 years, educated herself, paid for herself, always worked, paid her taxes, supported local charities, and been involved with her community. She says:
“I am probably not the…immigrant everyone fears, but it doesn’t change the fact that I am an immigrant and I worry for my future.”

Andy Burnham: I find it terrible that that is how people in Britain in 2016 are thinking and feeling today as we have this debate. We should do something today to give my hon. Friend’s constituent some comfort and to send the message that she is indeed valued here.

Boris Johnson: I would like to put on record what I think has been said already—that countless times the Vote Leave campaign gave exactly this reassurance to everybody from EU countries living and working here, and it is very, very disappointing that that should be called into question. I think it is absolutely right to issue the strongest possible reassurance to EU nationals in this country, not just for moral or humanitarian reasons, but for very, very sound economic reasons as well. They are welcome, they are necessary, they are a vital part of our society, and I will passionately support this motion tonight.

Andy Burnham: I am pleased to hear it. Let us not rerun the arguments of the referendum campaign today, despite the fact that it has given rise to the situation that we are now in. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he and others did not argue that people should be sent back.  The leave campaign held the very clear position during the referendum that there should be no question of EU nationals having to return.
My worry is this: why have the Government—the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers—muddied the waters in the aftermath of the referendum? Why are they not providing a basic reassurance to millions of people living here? I say that because it was entirely predictable that this question would arise following a potential Brexit vote. The answer on why they cannot give a straight answer can be found in last week’s Civil Service World, which said:
“Downing Street on Monday reiterated that the civil service had not done separate contingency work for the wider process of withdrawal—something the new team will now lead on.”
I have a simple question for the Minister: why on earth did the Government not do any contingency planning so that they were in a position to give a straight answer to the people who are now worried about their status? Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is leading this work, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the unit set up to deal with Brexit is still only looking at “options” for the next Prime Minister to consider. That is not good enough. May I remind Conservative Members that there is still a country to be run here? This will only add to the feeling that they have abdicated their responsibility to lead the country following the referendum and have plunged us into chaos.

Catherine West: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this level of incompetence is frightening, and that it is causing genuine distress among our constituents, and also in areas such as construction, where 49% of construction workers building new homes are European? This could lead to real dangers for the economy and industry as well.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend puts her point very well.
If it were only Labour Members saying this, the public might think it is partisan or point-scoring—but it is not, is it? We have just heard from somebody as senior as the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Yesterday, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said that the failure to carry out any contingency planning in the event of Brexit amounted to “gross negligence” and a “dereliction of duty” on the part of the Prime Minister. He went on to say that there was not a majority in the Conservative party in support of the Home Secretary’s current position. We saw that for ourselves during the urgent question earlier this week. If there was ever a day for Parliament to do the right thing, surely it is today. I hope that Members opposite put their conscience and their constituents first and do the right thing.

Kate Green: Although the Government may be woefully unprepared for the consequences of the referendum outcome, my right hon. Friend will be interested to hear that a number of non-governmental organisations and charities, including Citizens Advice and groups that support Roma families, are already putting plans in place to support worried EU residents. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to meet these charities as   quickly as possible so that, at the very least, he can have meaningful discussions about the need for security and certainty for the people they represent?

Andy Burnham: In the absence of the Home Secretary, somebody needs to provide some leadership, don’t they? Somebody needs to meet the community groups that are worried about the current situation. I hope that the Minister is listening to what my hon. Friend has just said, because the sheer lack of any direction at the moment is causing real difficulties on the streets of her constituency, mine and others.

Robert Jenrick: With 3,500 eastern European citizens living in my constituency, I have a huge amount of sympathy for this motion. However, with respect, the Home Secretary’s position is simply that this issue requires a degree of consideration before proceeding. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s position? Is it to give all the European citizens living in this country indefinite leave to remain tomorrow? Is it to make them British citizens? Surely this requires a degree of consideration.

Andy Burnham: That is precisely my position. Those people came here when they were legally entitled to do so and are contributing to our society. Absolutely, they should be allowed to stay. I am amazed that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s position as well.
The clearest explanation of the Government’s position came from the Minister for Immigration on Monday:
“It has been suggested that the Government could now fully guarantee EU nationals…the right to stay, but that would be unwise without a parallel assurance from European Governments regarding British nationals living in their countries”.—[Official Report, 4 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 607.]
I want to take the House through the logic of that position and what it means in practice. Effectively, the Government are saying that if, in the course of negotiations, Britain was unable to secure the rights of British nationals living abroad, it would consider sending home EU nationals in retaliation. Let me put it another way: the Government are willing to put the lives of millions of people living here in limbo, and also the lives of their dependants, to secure the position of people who have chosen to make their life elsewhere. How can that be right? I have to say to the Government that this is not good enough.
Yesterday, we had an expansion on the Government’s position from a spokesperson, who said this:
“At last night’s meeting of the 1922 committee Theresa was very clear about the position of EU nationals in Britain, and argued that it was equally important to consider the rights of British nationals living abroad”.
I am all in favour of the UK Government doing all they can to secure the rights of UK nationals living in the rest of Europe, but it should not be at the expense of the security of families who are living, working and paying taxes here. The effect of this position is to prioritise British nationals living abroad at the expense of those living here, and I cannot defend that. I would argue that the best way for our Government to strengthen the position of British nationals living abroad is to make a decisive unilateral move now to secure the rights of  those from other countries who are living here. Surely that would build the trust and good will that have been sorely lacking in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.
There is no reason at all why this issue needs to get mixed up in the negotiations with Europe. It was this Government’s decision to make these 3 million people an issue in the negotiations, and it is entirely within the gift of the UK Government to remove this uncertainty today and commit to changing the immigration rules. Although I understand the Minister’s argument that giving status to anyone who is already here before the UK formally leaves the UK could be an incentive for others to come here, he could easily fix that by making it clear that those with the right to stay have to have been resident in this country before 23 June, referendum day. It is very simple; a national insurance number would prove it. According to international convention, people should not have their rights retrospectively eroded. Does it not follow that people who have made a life here, which was perfectly legal for them to do, should not have the rug pulled from underneath them?
There is another more serious implication of the failure to take away the uncertainty. It will create the conditions for the climate of hostility that we have seen since the referendum to continue, and with it the potential for abuse and violence. That is not something that any Home Secretary or Home Office Minister should put his or her name to. If the Government’s formal position is that they might in due course ask people to go home, it can only give encouragement to those who wish to stir up division and hatred in our communities.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite wrong for the Government to use these people as pawns either in the Brexit negotiations or in the Tory leadership contest?

Andy Burnham: I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. That is exactly how these people feel. There have been quotes in the papers from people saying that that is the feeling they have been left with. Many of those who work in our NHS, our schools and our universities can go and work elsewhere, and some of them are highly sought-after individuals. If we do not send a clear message to them, others will.

Tommy Sheppard: I agree entirely with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. May I ask him to comment on one practical consideration? Many people in my constituency are deciding that they wish to apply for citizenship, as one of the options available to them, but they complain that it is very difficult. For example, my constituent Carmen Huesa, who has been here for 19 years, is a Spanish-born senior researcher at the University of Edinburgh. She has said that the application forms are very complicated; that they require information that, because she has been here for two decades, is not available any more; and that the fees are a bit of a barrier. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that while we are sorting out the mess, it would be a statement of intent from the Government if they at least committed to fast-tracking applications for British citizenship from EU citizens who have made their lives in this country, waiving the fees and putting additional support units in the UK Visas and Immigration offices to help with processing?

Andy Burnham: That would be something. If the Minister got up today and said that, perhaps these people would feel a little more valued than they do. We will have to wait to see whether anything is forthcoming. It is right for the hon. Gentleman to say that putting obstacles in people’s way and making them pay fees just increases their sense of alienation from our country. I do not believe that any Labour or Scottish National party Member wants to see that; neither, I suspect, do Conservative Members.
I was talking about the climate. There continue to be attacks, and the Metropolitan police have received three reports an hour of abuse since the referendum—a rise of more than 50%. Yesterday in Torquay, graffiti that read “EU rats go home now” was sprayed on a health centre. This is not on. The Government could do something about this. If this climate carries on, it could have serious implications for the NHS and other public services. People who voted leave—I say this while looking at the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—did not vote for this. They did not vote for their country to become a less welcoming, more hostile place, but in the absence of action and leadership from the Government, that is exactly what is beginning to happen. Only they can change it, and they need to do so now.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way a couple more times before I finish, and of course I will give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Does he agree that it would help the Government’s bargaining position with the other EU countries immensely if the next British Prime Minister went to Brussels for the negotiations and said that he or she had already granted the right to remain? The position of the 1.3 million British citizens would therefore be secured. That would help them; it would not hinder them, as the Home Secretary has suggested.

Andy Burnham: Of course. It is impossible to deny the simple power of what my right hon. Friend has just said. The generous, open-minded gesture of saying now that people are welcome here would not just improve our position in negotiations and strengthen the position of British nationals living abroad; it would say something very important about our country and how it has not changed after the referendum. That is why the Government should do it.
I want to end on a personal note. My wife, Marie-France, is a Dutch national, and she has been here for 26 years since we met at university. In that time, she has been a volunteer working with young people who have learning disabilities. She has been involved in our children’s schools. She has run a business and employed people. Following the death of her sister Claire a decade ago, she has raised thousands and thousands of pounds through Race for Life for Cancer Research UK. I will be honest; she cried and cried after the Brexit result was announced. Although she has paid tax here for more than 20 years, she was not able to cast a vote in that momentous decision. She has never been able to vote for me in a general election, although she often threatens  that she would not vote for me if she could. As a result of Brexit, she and other EU nationals could even lose their right to vote in local elections—that is no longer guaranteed unless there is a change in the law. The old saying “No taxation without representation” does not currently apply to the 3 million EU nationals living among us. We could say that this country is already treating them as second-class citizens; they will be even worse off if we do not rectify the situation we are discussing today.

Stewart McDonald: I can trace the alienation the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) back to the point when this House refused to give EU nationals  the vote in this referendum. We gave them the vote for the independence referendum in Scotland. Does the right hon. Gentleman regret that decision by the Government?

Andy Burnham: It was entirely wrong. As I said, what happened to no taxation without representation? I cannot defend a situation in which British nationals had the vote in the referendum even if they were living abroad but people living and paying taxes here did not. There was a basic unfairness in that, which needs to be corrected.
We have got this the wrong way around, and I sincerely hope that the Government will act soon to confirm the legal right of EU nationals to be here. Rather than dragging it out grudgingly, should we not take this opportunity to do the opposite and show them how much we value them by giving them that right to have their say at elections? We could go further, as the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said a moment ago, and offer British citizenship for free to any EU national working in our national health service or other public services.

Callum McCaig: I agree very much with what the shadow Home Secretary is saying. The fact that British expats—or immigrants to other countries, as they should perhaps be known—had the right to vote in the referendum, whereas EU nationals living here did not, really underlines the crass nature of using EU nationals living here as a bargaining chip in negotiations. That is despicable and should end.

Andy Burnham: I could not agree more. As I have been outlining, the thrust of Government policy is already to treat them as second-class citizens, because they do not have the same voting rights as other citizens. If they are now to be left in the lurch for two or three years, how will they feel at the end of that process? What will they think of our country? What will the countries that they come from think of us? I do not think any of us—certainly on the Opposition Benches—want that to happen.
Those are big questions and are perhaps for another day. Today, we have a very simple decision to make. We have an opportunity to do the right thing, take away our constituents’ worries and improve the climate on the streets of our communities. It is no secret that I have a high regard for the Home Secretary, even going so far as to give her a backhanded endorsement via Twitter at  the weekend. I have seen her show leadership on difficult issues in the past, and I urge her to do so again tonight. Real leadership would be giving her MPs the chance to vote to take the uncertainty away and return a degree of stability to an uncertain and worried country. By passing the simple motion before us, we can send a simple message to those who have chosen to make their life here: we value you, and you are welcome here.

Alan Whitehead: EU citizens working in the health service are at this moment receiving abuse from patients with whom they are working, on the grounds that they should not be working in the health service and should be going home. Will my right hon. Friend invite the Health Secretary to give a very strong statement of support for all those EU citizens working in our health service, who should have the right to stay for as long as their services can be of good for this country?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend has raised a crucial point. I have read out some comments from health professionals that have been reported in The Guardian. I have another here, from a German GP:
“I have lived and worked here for 16 years. It feels as if 50% of the population in the UK doesn’t want me here any more. I feel as if a rug has been pulled out from under my feet.”
If people feel that they have no choice but to leave because they do not feel welcome, what will happen to our health service or to the time that people wait for a GP appointment? What would happen to the pressure on A&E, and to hospital waiting lists? Our NHS is utterly dependent on EU nationals who come to work here, and if they choose to leave, the NHS would be put at severe risk. That is why we should act. It is right for our public services and for those individuals and their families, but it is also right for us as a country to take this action tonight, so that we send a message from this Parliament to Europe and the rest of the world.
Yes, people have expressed frustrations with the EU, but our country and its people have not changed. We are still that same place that has been renowned the world over for doing the fair, right and decent thing. Amid all the chaos in our politics, let us take a step back today towards sanity and stability, and pass this motion overwhelmingly.

James Brokenshire: The Labour party has called for a debate on the status of EU nationals, following the EU referendum less than two weeks ago and the decision by the British people to leave the European Union. I echo some of the words used by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who opened the debate by underlining that EU nationals in this country are truly valued members of our community and welcome here—I think those were the words he used, and I wish to share them at the outset of this debate.
As the motion makes clear, approximately 3 million European Union nationals currently live in Britain. There can be no doubt that in this country EU nationals make an invaluable contribution to our economy, our society and our daily lives.

Eilidh Whiteford: rose—

Margaret Ferrier: rose—

James Brokenshire: I would like to make progress and then I will give way.
Up and down the United Kingdom, people from European Union member states are caring for the elderly, tending the sick in hospitals, teaching our children, volunteering for our charities, setting up and working in businesses and providing important local services. There are nearly 250,000 EU workers in the public sector, and as has been said, in September 2015, 9.4% of NHS doctors and 6.3% of NHS nurses in England were from an EU country. Almost 125,000 EU students study at UK universities. More than that, everyone in the House, and people up and down the country, will hold EU nationals dear as friends, family members and members of their communities. We all recognise the contribution made to this country by EU nationals, and they should be proud of that contribution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I am spoiled for choice, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

Eilidh Whiteford: More than 4,000 EU nationals live in my constituency and do essential jobs in our NHS and our schools. They also work in our private sector and play a critical role in our fish processing sector. The Government’s failure to offer reassurance on the future status of those EU nationals is causing not only distress but huge economic uncertainty. Will the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee that those already living and working here will have the right to stay?

James Brokenshire: I will come on to the points that the hon. Lady raises, but I recognise the contribution that so many EU citizens make to many aspects of our life and economy, as well as the issues that she highlighted such as the fishing industry in Scotland.

Mark Pritchard: Do not the Government, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the minority parties and particularly those listening to or reporting this debate have a responsibility at this time to realise that what we say and how we say it is vital? I welcome the fact that the Minister has not said that anybody needs to return home and that he has recognised the contribution made by EU citizens in the private and public sectors. I, for one, say that they are very welcome in Shropshire.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point about the contribution of EU nationals in his constituency. I will come on to make more points about the approach the Government are taking.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister will know there has been a huge increase in hate crimes, not just against EU nationals but against other foreign nationals in the UK, mainly as a result of  the extreme views on the excesses of the political margins becoming regretfully more mainstream as a result of the fall-out from 23 June. Is not the right thing to do, to quash this once and for all, to say we will put the EU nationality issue to bed by saying these people are welcome in an open and fair United Kingdom?

James Brokenshire: I will go on to talk about some of the issues in our communities, but at this stage I want to give a very unequivocal message to those who perpetrate hate and division in our communities and in our societies: it is unacceptable that people should seek to cause division, to bully, to harass or to put graffiti on people’s walls as a consequence of their nationality. That is why the police have taken very firm action. That does not represent the country I believe in. The Government will continue to take firm action against anyone who has been involved in that sort of activity.

Huw Merriman: In the week before the referendum vote, I spent time at 25 of my local schools. It was heartbreaking to hear the children saying, “Will my mum or my dad have to go back?” I never wanted this event to occur and I take it a little sorely from people on the other side of the camp who now proclaim the right to this. Will the Minister reaffirm the position of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who have said there will be no immediate changes in the circumstances of European nationals currently residing in the UK? On that basis, nobody should be fearful right now.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend is right that there are no changes to the current situation. We remain a member state of the European Union. Therefore, those rights remain while we remain a member of the European Union.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I respond very directly to the false claims that the Government in some way see EU citizens as bargaining chips. In the approach the Government take and the agreements we make, we will never treat EU citizens as pawns in some kind of cynical game of negotiation chess. That does not represent the values of this country or the values of the Government, which are to treat the people who come to this country with dignity and respect.

Catherine West: Will the Minister apologise for the Government being woefully inadequate and underprepared on this vital issue?

James Brokenshire: The Government are taking these issues into very careful consideration. I will come on to explain some of the challenges, some of the intricacies and some of the complexities that lie behind all this.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: If I may just make a little bit more progress, I will be generous with interventions, as I always am.
We will look to secure a fair deal for EU citizens, as we secure a fair deal for British citizens in the EU. That is the responsible approach, and that is what we will do. We want to be able to guarantee the legal status of EU  nationals who are living in the UK and I am confident we will be able to do just that. We must also win the same rights for British nationals living in European countries and it will be an early objective for the Government to achieve those things together. As the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made clear and as I stated on Monday, there will in any event be no immediate changes in the circumstances of EU nationals in the UK. Currently, they can continue to enter and live in the UK as they have been doing.

Andy Burnham: I am struggling to follow the logic of the Minister’s position. He made a very angry statement a minute ago saying that they were not pawns, but he is saying explicitly that there is a negotiation here and that the Government will not make commitments to them until they have got commitments over there. That is precisely what they are. Why is he linking the two issues? Why does he not just say to people living here, working here and paying taxes here that they are welcome to stay, and deal with the British nationals issue another day?

James Brokenshire: As I said in response to the urgent question earlier this week, it is important to look at all these issues together. This is about ensuring that we look at these matters in this way. As I have said, I am confident that we will be able to work to secure and guarantee the legal status of EU nationals living here in conjunction with the rights of British citizens. It is important for the Government to fight for the rights of British citizens as well. I am genuinely surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is questioning that in some way. It is notable that his motion makes no reference to that at all.
It is important to put on record that those who have been continuously lawfully resident in the UK for five years qualify for permanent residence. It is an important point for those who have raised points about constituents and family members who have been in this country for a long time that those rights already exist, so they should have no fear about that. There is no current requirement for such people to apply for documentation from the Home Office to acquire this status.

Robin Walker: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s efforts to fight for the interests of both UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. I asked the Prime Minister a question about investment in this country. Two of the largest inward investors in my constituency, Yamazaki Mazak and Bosch, have asked me to push for the strongest possible negotiation on behalf of EU citizens already in this country being able to stay. Many of them, alongside thousands of local people, are their employees in Worcester. I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances, but I urge him to continue to make this the absolutely first task of our negotiations.

James Brokenshire: I can certainly give my hon. Friend precisely that reassurance. The Government fully appreciate the importance of giving certainty to EU citizens when the UK exits from the European Union. Addressing this issue is a priority that we intend to deal with as soon as possible. [Interruption.] Let me finish the point.   As the Prime Minister has made clear, decisions on issues relating to the UK’s exit from the EU will need to be made by a new Prime Minister.

Crispin Blunt: I think this is the kernel of the problem. The Minister needs to reassure EU citizens in the United Kingdom long before the moment when we leave the European Union. The problem of linking the issue of British citizens in the EU is that a deal on our leaving the EU is unlikely until we actually leave it. Getting certainty about British citizens cannot be linked to the position of EU citizens. It is wrong in principle, and we would be much better off securing their position by making a generous statement of our position now. I understand that there are legal implications about EU citizens coming to the UK from now on, and perhaps that should be the issue to focus on and support the Minister to deal with in view of our understanding of the difficulties he faces. It is the link with British citizens that is causing him all these problems.

James Brokenshire: Is important for this Government to stand up for the rights of British citizens overseas. I am surprised if my hon. Friend is in some way questioning that. It is the Government’s responsibility to fight for the rights of British citizens. As I have indicated, the Prime Minister has stated that this will be a matter for the new Prime Minister, but it will be an urgent priority for all the reasons that right hon. and hon. Members have given.

Margaret Ferrier: The Minister is generous in allowing interventions. My constituent, Mrs Pearson, is a Maltese national who has lived in the UK for 42 years. She has built her life in Scotland and has contributed not only economically, but socially and culturally. Does the Minister not agree that it is absolutely absurd that my 78-year-old constituent has to live in worry when the Government could sort this out now, so that she and others from Malta could have indefinite leave to remain?

James Brokenshire: I hope that the hon. Lady noted what I said earlier about the right to permanent residence for those who have been here lawfully for five years. I made that point very carefully and very firmly, as I did in response to the urgent question, because people have raised concerns about the issue. I wanted to be very specific and very clear, to give precisely the sort of reassurance that the hon. Lady’s constituent needs, and I hope that what I have said has provided that reassurance.

Jeremy Quin: The Minister has referred to European students. I have been contacted by a constituent who is about to embark on a medical degree in the Netherlands. I think that this issue is a priority, and I hope that we shall soon be able to reassure students that they will be able to continue their degree courses.

James Brokenshire: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been actively involved in reassuring students who are about to embark on their studies. I was intending to deal with that point later.

Stella Creasy: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady. I will always be generous to her.

Stella Creasy: Is there not a cruel irony in what the Minister is saying? Many of those who fought for Britain to vote to leave the European Union did so on the basis of the concept that we would somehow retain sovereignty over our own decision making, yet at the very point when we could exercise that sovereignty—when we as a House could vote unconditionally to give the EU citizens who are currently in the United Kingdom security about their status here—the Minister is choosing to prevaricate and to link that to decisions in the European Union. If the House votes for the motion, will he not accept that it has made an unequivocal statement about the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, and will he therefore give those people the status that they deserve?

James Brokenshire: I reiterate that we will act fairly. It is important for us to take these steps with a cool head, in a calm way, to secure the best possible outcomes for EU citizens who are here, as well as for British citizens overseas.
Further considerations must be taken into account. As I said on Monday, it has been suggested by Members of Parliament and others—and it has been suggested again today—that the Government could fully guarantee EU nationals living in the UK the right to stay now, but where would the right hon. Member for Leigh draw the line? I think that he has drawn it in one place already by suggesting 23 June, but what about 24 June? What about the EU nationals who arrived later that week, or those who will arrive in the autumn to study at our world-class universities? Or should we draw the line in the future—for example, at the point at which article 50 is invoked, or when the exit negotiations conclude?
It must also be recognised that, as well as working to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, the Government have a duty to protect the rights of UK nationals who currently reside in countries throughout the EU. Just as EU nationals are making a tremendous contribution to life in the United Kingdom, UK nationals are contributing to the economies and societies of the countries that belong to the EU.

Andy Burnham: Surely 23 June was the moment when the position changed. Surely anyone who came here before that date came here in different circumstances. It is easy to trace everything to that day.
May I return the Minister to the issue of the link with British nationals? The Government have a responsibility to people who are living here today, are worried about their future, and are feeling insecure. Why is the Minister saying that people who have chosen, voluntarily, to make a life in another country are as important, if not more important, to the Government than those who are already here in our communities?

James Brokenshire: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not be standing up for British citizens? They are British citizens, wherever they may be in the world. It is important for us to ensure that there are appropriate protections for British citizens, whether or not they are in the EU, and also for EU citizens who are here.
As for the timing issue, I repeat what I said about 24 June. We remain an EU member state until we leave, and we are therefore subject to all the existing EU laws and requirements in that regard. All I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman, very firmly, is that drawing up cut-off dates it not as straightforward as he is suggesting, because of the continuing rights that will exist in relation to EU citizens who have arrived since the referendum result, and the need to ensure that this issue is properly addressed.

Yvette Cooper: The Immigration Minister is right to say that we should be concerned about the interests of British ex-pats. Perhaps he can tell the House whether he has been in touch with the Spanish Interior Minister or other Ministers across the EU, or whether these are simply words and a delaying strategy. If he has been in touch with them, can he tell us whether any of those other Governments want to play a trading game with people’s lives and other people’s citizens, because I do not believe they do, and if they do not, why can he not just get on with this—listen to all Members in all parts of the House and give some guarantees now to the EU citizens who are settled here?

James Brokenshire: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point about certainty, and we want to give certainty at the earliest possible opportunity, but it is not as straightforward as she suggests for the reasons I have already mentioned. Of course conversations have taken place at different levels of government with other member states, and clearly we want to see that this certainty is provided for British citizens in EU member states as well as for EU citizens here. That is why I make the point about this being a priority. But we should not pretend that this is a straightforward task. There is a range of practical, financial and legal considerations. As part of this work, the Government will need to consider the range of circumstances of those who could enjoy these protections, and the form of the protections. For example, an EU student who has embarked on a higher education course might have differing requirements to an EU student who has just graduated from university and is looking for work.
This issue is not simply about the immigration status of an individual. Under free movement law, EU citizens’ rights are far broader than just the right to reside in the UK. There are employment rights, entitlements to benefits and pensions, rights of access to public services, and rights to run a business, which is so closely aligned with the right to provide cross-border services, as well as the ability to be joined by family members and extended family members, in some cases from countries outside the EU. Of course, under current arrangements these rights extend to European economic area and Swiss nationals, who are not in the EU. They all need to be considered, and we must remember that people do not have to register with the UK authorities to enjoy basic EU rights to reside. We will need to work out how we identify fairly and properly the people who are affected.

Gisela Stuart: It is of course possible to make life exceedingly difficult, and that is what the Immigration Minister is trying to do. Will he listen to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, which was   very straightforward: on EU citizens’ rights to residency, we acknowledge that whatever rights they had on 23 June they have now, end of story?

James Brokenshire: Obviously, I hear the desire for that simplicity, but it is not as straightforward as the right hon. Lady would like to present. She might reflect on some of the themes I have highlighted, because it is important that we get this right, not just for now, but for the years to come. It is about getting the right deal—the fairest deal—for those who are here, and that is what we remain committed to doing. There will need to be detailed and painstaking work examining each of these rights and the different circumstances in which people find themselves, to ensure that there are no unforeseen or unintended consequences. That work will be led by the Europe unit based at the Cabinet Office, which will work in close consultation with all Departments with an interest.
It is important for the House today to underline to EU nationals that they continue to be welcome in the UK. Alongside the statements made by the Prime Minister that there will be no immediate changes in the circumstances of EU nationals, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published guidance for EU students to provide additional reassurance to those who are about to embark on a course.

James Berry: As a fellow London MP, I am sure my right hon. Friend has received many letters from EU migrants working hard, earning money and starting their lives here in this country, but also from former residents and the families of former residents who live abroad. Does he agree that this whole issue of EU migrants living here and Brits living abroad should be hived off from the main negotiations and dealt with first, and as a priority, between Heads of State now, because we must all have an interest in preserving the status of EU migrants here and Brits abroad?

James Brokenshire: As I think I indicated in response to other interventions, this is a priority for the Government and we recognise the issues that have been highlighted, fairly, by colleagues across the House. That is why, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, the matter is being given emphasis and priority within the Government. Despite some across the House having sought, unfairly, to sow doubt and create uncertainty, people should take a message of reassurance from the contributions to the debate and our statements that the intent is to solve the issues quickly.
In recent days, we have seen some appalling hate crimes perpetrated against EU nationals and others living in the UK, including damage to a Polish community centre in Hammersmith, hateful leaflets targeted at children in Cambridgeshire and abuse hurled at people walking in the streets. The Metropolitan police has said that 67 hate crimes are being reported every day. Hate crime of any kind has absolutely no place in our society. We will not stand for these attacks, which should be investigated by the police.

Andrew Slaughter: I thank the Minister for mentioning the extremely sobering attack in Hammersmith. We are waiting to hear whether, like the hon. Member for  Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Minister will support the motion tonight, but it does not sound like it. Indeed, it sounds rather as though he is under instructions not to, which it makes it doubly bad that his boss the Home Secretary is not here to answer for herself—he probably agrees with that.
On the point about community, I spoke on this issue to one of my constituency schools in the education centre. Many of the pupils’ parents were born outside the UK, and I saw real concern on their faces. That is what we are dealing with now and that is why we need an answer to the question today, not in two years’ time.

James Brokenshire: As I have already indicated, this is a clear priority in relation to agreements with our EU partners. It is absolutely right that we condemn the activities of anyone involved in such incidents in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Equally, and as I have said, there are no changes to existing EU rights while we remain a member of the EU. I believe that we will be successful in securing those rights and will seek to treat fairly the EU nationals who are here.
As I said, hate crime of any kind has absolutely no place in our society. We will not stand for these attacks, and they should be investigated by the police.

Ian Blackford: The Minister highlights hate crime and our responsibility to look after EU citizens who are here. Will he come and meet our constituents? A young French teacher in my constituency is living in fear and is alarmed about whether she will be allowed to stay here in the long term. Why do we not do the right thing collectively today and say that the people who are here are citizens of our country and deserve the full rights and support that we can give them? This is not about negotiating with Europe. Let us take that off the table and do the right thing for those who live in this country.

James Brokenshire: That is why, as I have said several times, we are working and will work to guarantee the rights of those who are here while also protecting the rights of British citizens. I remain confident that we will be able to do that, and people should therefore take a message of reassurance from this debate about the Government’s intention to act fairly and appropriately. Those are the values that I stand for and that is the approach that we will take.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the reassurances that the Minister has given to the House today. From what we have heard, I think there is a misunderstanding about the status of EU nationals in the minds of some Members. If that is the case here, it is more likely—or as likely—to be the case outside. As a practical step, has the Home Office put something on its website to say what that status is now and will be in the future?

James Brokenshire: We are clear as to the existing rights of EU citizens, and I have made the point in relation to the five-year residency issues. I am also convening a meeting with ambassadors of EU member states to explain the steps that we are taking in response to threats to communities, and to underline some of the  key messages I have given today so that they can reassure any of their citizens who contact them about this.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once again; he has been incredibly generous. I just want to clear one thing up before he concludes his remarks: how do the Government propose to vote on the motion? One might have the impression, having listened to him, that they are getting ready to vote against it, but it has been suggested that they might abstain. Let us be clear that if the Government abstain, the motion will be carried and the message will go out from this House tonight that people are welcome here and that they will be able to stay.

James Brokenshire: My concluding remarks might be helpful in responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
As I said on Monday, EU nationals can have our full and unreserved reassurance that their right to enter, work, study and live in the UK remains unchanged. We value the tremendous contribution they make every day in towns, cities and villages up and down the country. We fully expect that the legal status of EU nationals living in the UK, and of UK nationals living in EU member states, will be properly protected. Given that both the UK and the EU want to maintain a close relationship, we are confident that we will work together and that both EU and British citizens will be protected through reciprocal arrangements. As part of the negotiations, we want to be able to conclude these matter as quickly as possible.
We therefore have great sympathy and alignment with the themes contained in the Opposition’s motion—I do not think that we are very far apart in that regard. However, as I have set out, any decision to pre-empt our future negotiations would risk undermining our ability to secure those arrangements and protect the interests of EU nationals and British nationals alike and to get the best outcomes for both. That is why we are unable to support the motion tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I give advance notice that there will a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, although that does not apply to the Scottish National party’s Front-Bench spokesperson, Stuart McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: The day after the referendum, Scotland’s First Minister directly addressed nationals of other EU states, telling them,
“you remain welcome here, this is your home and your contribution is valued.”
It was a simple but powerful statement, and one that was warmly welcomed. Indeed, it was echoed today by the shadow Home Secretary. Like that statement, this motion has our full support.
In contrast, the Home Secretary’s comments were gravely misjudged, causing apprehension where there did not have to be any, and creating uncertainty when she has the power to provide clarity. What makes the  situation all the more frustrating and ridiculous, for reasons I will come to, is that it seems blindingly obvious that EU nationals will be able to remain here as and when—and indeed if—Brexit occurs. But people need to hear that loud and clear from the Home Secretary. She must put that beyond any doubt.
On Monday, Members on both sides of the House united to tell the Home Secretary to do just that, and I have no doubt that the same will happen today. The same arguments, based on both simple common decency and plain common sense, remain overwhelming and unanswerable.
We have heard already, as we will hear again today, about the friends and family, the colleagues and the constituents from other member states who are now uncertain about their future. We have also heard, as we will hear again today, about the valued staff, the key personnel and the vital public service workers from other EU countries whose future now seems uncertain. It is utterly unacceptable to expect people to live their lives with such uncertainty. It is a disgraceful way to treat our EU citizens.
On Monday the Minister expressed genuine sympathy with many of those arguments, and it is abundantly clear from what he has said that he wants to get us to a position whereby EU citizens can and will remain in the country. Sympathy and expressions of hope, however, are not enough. Clarity and reassurance now are essential, and they can and should be delivered.
The reasons offered by the Government for refusing to provide that clarity are absurd and bizarre. On Monday the Minister was unhappy—he is unhappy again today—at the use of terms such as “bargaining chip”, but he himself said that securing the status of EU migrants in the UK, alongside that of UK citizens in the EU,
“needs to be part of the negotiations.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 616.]
That sounds exactly like a bargaining chip, because that is what it is, as his own hon. Friends have said. It is because the rights of EU citizens are being used as bargaining chips that the Government are not guaranteeing them.
That is as absurd as it is wrong and unethical, because it is a rubbish bargaining chip. How credible is it for the next Prime Minister to tell EU states, “If you don’t give us what we want, we’ll cut off our nose to spite our face, and if we don’t get the deal we are demanding, we’ll attempt to destroy ourselves by withdrawing rights from friends and loved ones, colleagues and neighbours”? The shadow Home Secretary and, indeed, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have already skewered the logic of that tit-for-tat approach.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to protect the rights of British citizens living in other parts of the EU is to give a simple reassurance that EU nationals living here will have their rights protected?

Stuart McDonald: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not a complicated matter. If we cannot persuade the Home Secretary on the grounds of common decency or common sense—that sometimes happens in immigration debates, unfortunately—perhaps we can  appeal to her self-interest by gently pointing out to her that she is, unusually, making a fool of herself by taking this approach.
I genuinely believe—I certainly hope—that I am not being naïve in saying that I do not for a minute believe that the Government are realistically even contemplating removing rights from millions of EU migrants. I think that all hon. Members know that and I think that the Minister knows it; he did everything he could on Monday to hint at it without saying so explicitly. What is more, the European Commission, other member states and everyone else involved in negotiations know it, too. Sadly, the only people who really matter in all of this—the EU nationals themselves—do not know it, because the Home Secretary is not saying it and the climate that they are living in tells them the opposite. The Home Secretary needs to fix that now.

Joanna Cherry: My hon. Friend has talked about us cutting off our nose to spite our face. I met the principal of Edinburgh Napier University in my constituency last Friday and she has been advised that potential staff members from other EU countries are withdrawing from job offers. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this uncertainty is allowed to continue, it will seriously damage the university sector in Scotland and across the United Kingdom?

Stuart McDonald: That is a perfect example of the uncertainty we are talking about and it has to be brought to an end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) has said, this does not require a detailed statement on exactly what form of leave is required or the precise mechanisms for implementing it. It requires a simple statement that all EU nationals in the UK today will continue to enjoy leave to remain in the UK, regardless of Brexit, and, preferably, that they will enjoy such leave on conditions that are at least as favourable as those currently in place. A simple sentence from the Minister or the Home Secretary is all that is required.
As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee has said, it is also absurd to argue that the UK’s position in Brexit talks would be undermined by such a move. On the contrary, it would show that we are approaching any negotiations in good faith, co-operatively, realistically and with integrity. The Home Secretary’s posturing, on the other hand, would engender nothing but ill-feeling and bad blood.

Peter Grant: My hon. Friend has said that EU citizens who live in the UK still feel uncertainty. Does he agree that another group who need to be told in no uncertain terms that those people are welcome are the racists who are carrying out racially motivated attacks on EU and other nationals, and that they need to be given an indisputable message that those EU citizens are welcome here and that they are here to stay for ever if they want to do so?

Stuart McDonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I will come to that issue shortly. As I have said, the Home Secretary’s negotiating position is complete and utter nonsense. Sadly, that is not out of keeping with too much of her immigration policy and indeed with too much of what passes for debate on matters of immigration.
Finally, since the referendum result, Members have quite rightly gone out of their way to recognise the hugely positive contribution made by nationals of other countries, including other EU countries, to the UK’s economy, society, communities and families. Members have condemned the xenophobia, racism and hostility that many are encountering.
There can be no shadow of a doubt that political discourse and rhetoric during, and for many years before, the EU referendum have been factors in legitimising and emboldening that very xenophobia. There has been intemperate talk of “swarms”, “waves”, “benefit tourists” and “NHS tourism” and an explicit Government goal of creating a hostile climate. Instead of tackling anti-migrant myths, there has been acquiescence. Instead of taking on the myth peddlers, too many have sought to ape their rhetoric. There has been empty policy after empty policy focused only on numbers, while the other major components of migration policy—integration and planning—are completely and utterly neglected.
Those failures precede the current Government by many years, but there can be no greater example than the net migration target, which is utter baloney. Every quarter we go through the same political pantomime of the Government wildly missing their net migration target, and the official Opposition demanding that something must be done, even though they have no idea what that something is.
Everybody in this Chamber knows that, whether or not we are in the EU, the net migration target is a complete myth. It has allowed the poisonous fiction to grow that the presence of EU nationals and others in this country is some sort of terrible problem that can be solved simply by turning off the migration tap without consequence, and that getting EU nationals to leave will therefore be a good thing.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to see whether his understanding is the same as mine. I think that we had an indication at the end of the Minister’s speech that the Government are planning to abstain on this motion tonight. It is a motion that gives EU nationals a right to remain—that is what it talks of. Does he agree that, if they abstain and there are enough people on the Opposition Benches to carry the motion, that will be the position of the House of Commons? There will be a resolution that people can stay and, in the future, the Government will not be able to take that away.

Stuart McDonald: I certainly hope that that transpires and becomes the case. The message should go out loud and clear from here that it is Parliament’s will that all EU nationals in this country will continue to enjoy the rights that they have just now and on the same terms and conditions.
I am also asking the House to think again about how we approach the debates on immigration. As I was about to say, it is absolutely no coincidence that what was an already desperate and ugly campaign went completely off the rails after 26 May when the latest net migration figures were published. Politicians have turned the net migration target into some sort of Holy Grail,  regardless of the fact that it is utterly unobtainable, and we have reaped the disastrous consequences in the weeks since those results.

Stewart McDonald: I am very grateful to the other Stuart McDonald for giving way. I am not suggesting for a minute that this is Scottish National party policy, but something that has been on my mind for a number of years is that, given that we know the economic benefits of immigration, why do we not shift responsibility for it away from the Home Office to the Treasury? Would that not change the terms of the debate?

Stuart McDonald: My honourable namesake makes a very good point. My point is that it is time to do things very, very differently. A few months ago, I went to Edinburgh university to meet Professor Christina Boswell who had arranged a discussion about the dangerous disconnect between political rhetoric and reality when it comes to immigration. She highlighted the launch by the German Government, back in 2000, of a cross-party commission on immigration. The German Immigration Commission brought together the main political parties, as well as representatives of business, trade unions, religious and migrant groups and immigration experts. It allowed for evidence-based discussion on all aspects of immigration, and sought to build consensus around policy reform. It examined Germany’s demographic and economic needs as well as challenges related to the social impacts of immigration and policies for integration. Perhaps more significantly, it changed the whole tenor of debate in Germany, normalising the idea that Germany was, and would need to remain, a country of immigration, and encouraged a more grounded and factually informed discussion of what that would entail.
We can perhaps learn too from the Government of Canada, who just yesterday launched a national conversation on immigration. Their starting point is:
“Although times and conditions may have changed, 21st-century newcomers to Canada have retained…innovative spirit, enriching the communities where they settle and helping to ensure the Canada of tomorrow remains as dynamic as the country of yesterday.
Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. Indeed, the story of Canadian immigration is inseparable from the story of Canada itself.”
The conversation document seeks to engage all Canada’s citizens in a grown-up discussion of all the key questions, from
“How many newcomers should we welcome to Canada in 2017 and beyond?”
to
“Is it important for Canada to continue to show leadership in global migration? If so, how can we best do that?”

Gisela Stuart: Do I take it the hon. Gentleman is advocating an Australian-style points-based immigration policy?

Stuart McDonald: I do not know where the hon. Lady gets that idea. I have not mentioned Australia. What I am talking about is the Canadian national conversation.
By asking the questions I quoted and having that grown-up conversation, Canada is already showing leadership. It is time that politicians here followed that example. As well as using today’s debate to praise EU  nationals and demand that the Government confirm their status, let us think too about how we can work together across parties to combat xenophobia in all possible ways and to ensure that migration policy and debates are based on evidence and honesty rather than political expediency. Anyone who wants to be Prime Minister should sign up to that approach and start by being absolutely straight about the safe and secure future of our EU nationals in this country.

Heidi Allen: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think I have ever been the first Back Bencher to be called. This is a record—I must be doing something right.
The emails I have received since the vote to Brexit have been like a tidal wave.
“We felt like a hurricane had hit our house”.
That was a statement made by one of the 200 of my constituents who came to a public meeting I held last Saturday to try to answer questions about the future. I say 200 because that was all we could squeeze in to the council chamber; unfortunately, another 300 or so had to be turned away.
My constituency is home to some of the best scientific and business brains in the country. The Genome Campus, the Babraham Institute, AstraZeneca, Alzheimer's Research UK and Cambridge University colleges—what they all have in common is that their work and global reach is the result of the combined effort of EU and UK citizens, who have moved there for their brains to connect. Our local economy is a major contributor to the EU economy, not just to the UK’s. Our work is developing drugs to beat cancer, pushing medical advancement every single day. Our beloved and nationally famed hospitals, Addenbrooke’s and Papworth, rely on an international workforce making up 11% of the total, which is well above the national average of 6%. These brains have families. Their children learn in our schools, their families contribute to our local communities and they help to run our parish councils.
The irony of ironies is that on polling day I was speaking to a room full of female engineers, encouraging them to lead and inspire more young women to follow in their footsteps. Bright, young and compassionate, they are plugging our science, technology, engineering and maths skills gap, and many of them are Italian, Dutch or Spanish. These ladies—these people—are hurting. The EU is hurting. Everyone is hurting. If this is a divorce, we in this Chamber are the responsible adults and these people are our children. We have welcomed them into our family, they have enriched our family, and we now owe it to them to protect them while we find a route forward.
Not a single candidate for Prime Minister has described or treated those people as bargaining chips; nor will they allow our 1.2 million British citizens living in other EU countries to be pawns of the negotiators on the other side of the water. We must never forget that this works both ways. Our British citizens deserve to be a priority in our mind.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Lady is taking a very human angle in this debate—an angle that it is important to remember.  Does she not agree, though, that we have an opportunity to set the tone of the negotiations—to say to our current EU partners, “This is the way that we approach this. We won’t let this have an adverse effect on your citizens”? Surely that will make myriad areas of discussion that much easier.

Heidi Allen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is interesting, given that I am about to come to a point about lack of cross-party consensus, that what he says is almost exactly what is on my next page, so perhaps I am about to eat my words. I was about to say that I am disappointed that the cross-party consensus that led up to the referendum seems to have evaporated already, and we are back to the same old, same old. I feel that here today, we are using these people for political point scoring, and I regret that. [Interruption.] It is how I feel.
Our new Prime Minister and Government will show clear leadership. The negotiations may be complex, the poker hand held close, but if we have learned one thing in the current refugee crisis, it is that people matter, and people must come before politics. I would like our new Prime Minister swiftly to establish negotiating terms of reference—a guiding principle that both Great Britain and the EU can sign up to. It should state very clearly that the lives of those disrupted by this momentous decision will be our collective priority. That would set the tone. That would be the first big test of leadership for our new Prime Minister, and I feel confident that they will rise to it.
Trust in politicians is even lower than it was when I became an MP just over a year ago, and I honestly did not think that was possible. To my Conservative colleagues, I say that our new leader must be someone who can reunite our country and lead the way back to trust. Now as never before in my lifetime, our great country must come together, but to do that, our people must have security, and certainty in their future, their family’s future, and their neighbours’ future. Without that, they will not have the strength to heal the rifts in their communities. My constituents want to play their part. They want to help, but they cannot do that on quicksand. Security is the first step back to trust. I will look to our new Prime Minister to lead by example.

Yvette Cooper: I feel slightly sorry for the Immigration Minister, who has been sent out to defend the indefensible for the second time this week by his Home Secretary. I hope that he has got a very good promise of a very good job out of this. It is not the first time that he and I have debated in this House when he has been sent out while the Home Secretary has gone to hide.
The Minister’s position is still indefensible, though it has moved in the past few days alone. The Home Secretary said on Sunday that there could be no movement until the negotiations had started, and one of her aides said that the issue was a “negotiating point”, even though there was all that stuff about this not being a bargaining chip. The Foreign Secretary said that it was “absurd” to agree on the status of EU citizens before anything could be agreed in wider negotiations, and the Minister himself said that it would be “unwise” to agree the status of EU citizens before wider negotiations had taken place.
Here is where I would probably disagree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), with whom I have agreed many times on other issues: I do not think that it is okay to leave this issue to become the first priority for a new Prime Minister in many weeks’ time. It is not okay simply to leave this question to the process of EU negotiations, when we have no idea how long that will take, given that people are worried about their jobs, homes and kids’ futures right now.

Peter Kyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just the terms that will need to be negotiated for people from the EU who are living here? The leadership that is needed is about the welcome that we give to people, who should be treated as equals in this country. She might be shocked to know that I spoke to the manager of a coffee chain recently, who was worried about the name badges that his staff wear because so many customers are making terrible comments to people serving coffee, such as “When are you going home?” Such comments have become regular now. Leadership is needed to set the tone that we have as a country, not just in relation to the nuts and bolts of people’s status in this country. It is about the welcome and what kind of country we are now, after Brexit.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. This is an immensely sensitive period when all of us have a responsibility not to give succour to extremists who want to exploit the present situation. That should mean giving confidence to people who have been settled here, often for many years, contributing to our public services or working setting up businesses.

Mike Gapes: May I draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 259, of which I am a co-sponsor, which raises exactly that point in respect of all the groups of migrants in this country, as well as the New Europeans group, with which I am pleased to be associated? Will all Members please add their name to early-day motion 259?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We all know that immigration has made a huge contribution to this country over very many centuries and that it will be important for our future.
As a result of the referendum I expect immigration rules to change for the future, and I have argued myself that free movement should be reformed even from within the EU, but there is a big difference between changing immigration rules for the future and suddenly ripping up the rights of people who are settled here, people who are living here now and have been doing so in good faith.
The Immigration Minister made three points today. First, he said that we would effectively guarantee only if the rights of British expats were also agreed. Secondly, he said that the matter was complicated because employment rules and benefit rules were also at stake. That suggests that he is saying that he might be considering ripping up the employment rules in respect of people who are here, so that they would be allowed to stay, but suddenly they might not be able to work. If he is not  considering ripping up the employment rules or the benefit rules, why does he suddenly throw that into the debate as a reason to delay securing the rights and the status of people who are here already? Thirdly, the Minister said that the matter would have to be looked at by the EU unit. As he knows, the EU unit is hardly set up at all. Staff are still being recruited. The unit has huge numbers of things to look at. It will not take any decisions until the new Prime Minister is in place and that is simply not fair on people.
Kids in the playground are being told that they have to go home. They are being bullied or teased at school and told that they might have to go home. Their parents cannot say to them, their teachers cannot say to them, and we as their MPs cannot say to them, “No. We can guarantee that you are not going to have to go home”, because the Immigration Minister will not say it and the Home Secretary will not say it. Unless both of them and the whole House say it, how can their teachers and parents reassure those kids in school right now? That is why the Minister should do it. It is not a big step for him to give that reassurance now.
I agree with the Minister that he should also advocate for the rights of British expats. There are pensioners who have invested their life savings in homes in Spain or Italy. We should be standing up for them and for people who are working in France and Germany.

Peter Grant: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will not, because of the shortage of time. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have time to contribute.
By getting into what looks like a trading game of people’s rights, the Minister is encouraging other Governments across Europe to get into the same trading game, and allowing them to think that this is something to be negotiated or a game to be played. Surely it would be simple just to say, “These are the rights that we are going to guarantee”, and then other Governments will follow suit. Doing so would make the negotiation easier, not harder.
I know that the Minister has said very firmly that he objects to the race hatred, the repatriation campaigns and the vile things that extremists have been saying, exploiting the current uncertainty. He is right to condemn those things and I know that he believes that strongly. However, he is giving extremists succour by not resolving this and not providing certainty. He knows that the vast majority of leave voters and remain voters are appalled by this kind of extremism and believe that EU citizens who are here, as well as British ex-pats in other parts of Europe, should have their existing rights respected, so why not just sort it out now?
Let us all say together to the extremists, the bullies in the playground, those trying to attack people in the street or on the bus, and those spraying slogans on community centres: “We will not stand for this. Of course nobody is expected to go home as a result of this vote. Of course we value those who have made a contribution here.” However, if we are all really to say that together, we need the Minister to say it, we need the Home Secretary to say it and we need the Prime Minister to say it. I really urge them to listen to the strong views on both sides of the House, to take a lead and to  exercise the sovereignty of this House, which we have debated for so long. Let us all just say that these people should be able to stay.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. The speech limit is being reduced to four minutes.

Flick Drummond: Like other Members of the House, I very much regret the increased reports of abuse and racism over the last two weeks. I represent a diverse and vibrant community in Portsmouth, which, as a port city, has always looked out to the wider world and welcomed people from everywhere.
As well as the traditional arrival of people as a result of trade and the Navy, we have a university with one of the fastest growing reputations in Europe. It takes in students from Europe and elsewhere, and I know how important universities’ global reach is for their academic and financial wellbeing. We already hear concerns from the higher education sector that the immigration restrictions on students and academics are onerous, and that has been debated before—often in this House. Whatever happens as we negotiate our way out of the EU, we must make sure that the world-leading position of our universities is not threatened in any way.
Everyone in Portsmouth was horrified at the racist abuse against the Polish community that was daubed on a wall next to our civic war memorial last week. I hardly need to point out the contribution the Poles have made as our allies in the most tragic circumstances for their country. Anyone who listened to the Polish Member of the European Parliament who was speaking following the result of the referendum will have seen his anguish and anger at how we have been treating Poles.
Whether someone comes to the UK from Poland or any other part of the EU to learn or work, they have the right to fair treatment and to be secure against racism and hatred. I disagree that this extremism is happening because of the status of these people at the moment; immigration came up frequently during the referendum, including in that most disgraceful poster, and that is what is causing the racism at the moment—it is not people’s status.

Peter Grant: Does the hon. Lady agree that a climate in which racism can thrive has actually been building up for years, largely thanks to the shamefully xenophobic headlines we have seen almost every day on the front pages of newspapers such as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail?

Flick Drummond: Yes, I totally agree, and that is also one of the reasons for the rise of UKIP because people saw it as being able to control immigration. It is something I completely abhor.
Those who come to the UK under a set of laws and immigration rules should be free to remain here under them for the duration of their stay. What happens in the future to people who want to come here after we have left the EU is a matter for the Government to look at, and that will be a discussion we have with the other  27 members in the coming years. However, basic notions of British fairness compel us to give the people who are already here a guarantee.
Most people in the UK who are from elsewhere in the EU are here for a limited time. One of the benefits of EU membership for people from recent joiners has been that it has helped their home countries to develop, and those people want to return to them. They are not coming here to escape permanent poverty, but to earn money to take home with them.
As we move on from the referendum decision, I hope we will be able to debate and decide these issues calmly and through consensus, rather than conflict. We have to set an example to the rest of the country, and if we fail we will just encourage the preachers of hatred and racism.
I am aware that this is complex and that it should be the first area of negotiation. In the meantime, however, we need to reassure our valuable EU taxpayers that we welcome them here.

Gisela Stuart: I think this House has to show leadership. People watching us today, from the United Kingdom and from mainland Europe, who have an interest in the decisions we make have a right to expect a clear statement from us. Some Members have mentioned the referendum campaign. There was an official referendum campaign, Vote Leave, which I was part of. The poster that has been mentioned was not part of our campaign, and we condemned it. There were other players who behaved in a way for which they have to be answerable. We were absolutely clear that we expected this Government to ensure, and to say clearly, that any immigration policy would have democratic consent, including respecting the rights of UK citizens abroad and EU citizens here up until the point that the country had made a decision.
I have to say to the Immigration Minister—with whom I too have a lot of sympathy, because he has been sent out to bat on a pretty sticky wicket—that he cannot pretend that people are not being treated as a bargaining chip and then say that we have to await the outcome of negotiations, which may be quite a long way off. In the interests of brevity and not repeating what others have said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made it absolutely clear what the Minister needs to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) reminded him that as this is a question of British parliamentary sovereignty, he is perfectly capable of doing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked him to do—just to get up and say that anybody in this country who had residency rights acquired before 23 June will continue to have them. That would set the tone for the negotiations and send a signal to everybody in the rest of Europe as to how we expect them to treat UK citizens living abroad. May I invite him to do that?

Lyn Brown: The Government’s refusal to guarantee the status of our EU residents is, quite frankly, an utter disgrace. Last weekend, I spoke to an Italian woman who has lived and worked in Britain for 30 years. She has made Britain her home.  She has raised her family here. Her children were born here and they are working here. She was in tears when she told me of her worry that she and her family were about to be deported. It absolutely broke my heart.

Karen Bradley: indicated dissent.

Lyn Brown: Intervene, then.
There are 3 million EU nationals living in the UK. Just like my constituent, they have jobs and homes, and are concerned about the future for their families. These are families who have entered the UK legally, made their homes here, paid their taxes, and have made a wonderful contribution to our country. The very least these families deserve is to have certainty about their future.

Julie Cooper: In this time of uncertainty post-Brexit, this is surely one area where the Government could act to give certainty immediately. Saying that EU citizens are not in any “immediate” danger of having their status changed is frankly not good enough. The Government have the power to act now and should do so.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The Home Secretary has said that these people’s lives will be a “factor” in the forthcoming negotiations over our exit from the EU. She has implied that the rights of EU citizens living here cannot be guaranteed because the Government need to seek guarantees about the rights of UK citizens living on the continent. It is appalling; people’s lives should not be treated as a bargaining chip. The Government’s strategy is not only heartless—it is inept. We do not want the other 27 member states to threaten the rights of the 1.2 million British nationals living on the continent, so why are we starting negotiations by threatening the rights of EU nationals living here?
I can only presume that the Home Secretary’s focus is not really on negotiations with the EU. Her tub-thumping, I presume, is designed to court the votes of the right-wing Tory membership—an olive branch after, and I say this gently, her low-profile support for the remain campaign. Using people as bargaining chips in EU negotiations is one level of insult; using them as pawns in a Tory “Game of Thrones” is quite another. A Prime Minister with any sense of responsibility could have stopped this happening. By resigning from office before settling the most basic questions about leaving the EU, this Prime Minister has left our exit strategy to the vagaries of a Tory leadership contest. The rights of EU nationals, the speed of our exit, and our future relationship with the EU are all factors in the Tory leadership campaign. This leaves 150,000 Tory party members in a position of disproportionate influence.
The failure to make a commitment to EU nationals comes with grave consequences. Racists and xenophobes are feeling emboldened and are spreading poison within our constituencies. I am ashamed to say that, in my constituency, a residential block was sprayed with a swastika and the word “out” in large, bold letters. I know that Members across the country have had to deal with similarly vile incidents. There has been a 57% increase in hate crime since the referendum. A straightforward  and clear message that EU residents are valued and welcome to stay for as long as they like would put racists back in their place. The destructive idea that there may be forced deportations would be rubbished in an instant.
If the Home Secretary is too busy to act, the Prime Minister should do so. I know he wants to run away from the responsibility for our leaving the European Union, but it was his referendum. He should have made sure that plans were in place for the immediate aftermath, no matter what the result. By abdicating his responsibility, the Prime Minister has left us all at the mercy of a Tory leadership campaign that is making us lurch to the right. It is our neighbours and friends from elsewhere in the EU who are suffering the most. It is a national disgrace.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who spoke with enormous passion about these issues. I am sorry that I was not able to be here for other speakers. The Select Committee is hosting a seminar on female genital mutilation, which is ongoing, but I wanted to contribute to this debate because it is of huge importance.
I was very pleased with the urgent question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on Monday. We disagreed with each other in respect of the referendum campaign but on this we are at one, as I think every other speaker so far has been, apart from the Minister. [Interruption.] Perhaps I am wrong, but I took it that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) also supported the view that EU citizens ought to be given the rights that we have talked about.
There are three issues here. The first is certainty. Immigration law has to be certain. To avoid legal proceedings being taken against the Government, breaches of the Vienna convention and any other uncertainties, it is absolutely vital that there is a strict adherence to the law of the land. That is why it is in the Government’s interest to allow for this certainty and to say that, from 23 June, anyone resident in this country who has come from any EU country ought to be allowed to remain here if they choose to do so. Some will and some will not, but that certainty is vital. It is extremely regrettable that, at the moment, different members of the Government are saying different things on immigration law. That cannot be right for our country and it cannot be right in respect of others who will come to this country.
Let me play devil’s advocate. The Minister and the Home Secretary might be fearful that now, after 23 June, people will suddenly arrive in the United Kingdom and then decide to remain here permanently. However, they can deal with that by giving a cut-off date now. They do not need to wait for the negotiations to begin. In fact, it would strengthen the hand of the future Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be—I do not have a vote in this leadership campaign, despite the wishes of some Members on this side—to be able to go to that first meeting, as they will have to do, and say that the United Kingdom has guaranteed the rights of EU citizens to live in this country. That would be a huge boost for whoever is the Prime Minister, and a huge amount of good will would flow from that decision.
I think it will be automatically accepted that the 1.3 million British citizens living in the EU will be allowed to stay. If the Minister needs a justification for that certainty, he just needs to read the brilliant speech made last night in this Chamber by his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), about what happens when social attitudes change as a result of a Government decision. We have all had examples of this. I heard it for myself when I went to a Polish church on Sunday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). This is what will happen if we are not certain about our law.
The Minister has six days to change his mind before he appears in front of the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday. I hope he will use those six days carefully to reflect on what the House has said and to do the right and decent thing. We are a good country and we are a decent country. Let us show what we are really made of.

Philippa Whitford: As I have done in previous debates on this issue, I declare an interest in that my husband is a German national who has lived here for 30 years and works in the NHS.

James Brokenshire: He can stay.

Philippa Whitford: That is awfully good of the Minister. I will phone my husband and tell him.
We have already heard of very high-calibre people who are not coming to the UK because of this issue. I was at the graduation ceremony of the University of the West of Scotland last Friday. One of its senior lecturers was almost at the point of getting on the boat to come here, but because in less than two years he might have to move his family and children, sell the house and go back, he has decided that it is not worth it. However, we are focused not on what will happen to the people who are due to come—that will have to be looked at—but on the people who are already here. They are totally integral to our communities and our public services.
Obviously, my background is in the NHS. As we heard on Tuesday, 110,000 people from the EU work in our health and social care systems. About half of them are doctors and nurses, and half of them are careworkers. Although people, such as my husband, who have been here longer than five years and earn more than £35,000 will be able to stay, will that income limit apply to others? If it does, most nurses will not qualify and no careworkers will qualify. They will all have to go back, as will most ordinary teachers.
The Government need to think about that insecurity. The Government say, “Don’t worry about it. It might happen in two years.” Does the Minister really think that families sit there and say, “Don’t worry; I know we’re going towards a cliff edge, but we won’t fret about the house, the kids and the job until a month or so before it happens.” There is no reason to be so combative about this. The Minister talked about fighting for the rights of UK nationals, but it should not be a fight. If we set the example by treating EU nationals here properly and immediately giving them absolute right to remain, there will be a much greater likelihood of civilised talks and of UK nationals being well treated in the EU. If we  go in saying, “You do that and we will do this,” we will set completely the wrong tone.
The Minister talked about the fact that people who have been here for more than five years can stay, but we have to look at their rights and benefits. Will this undermine the right to be treated in the NHS, the right to claim benefits if they cannot work and the pension rights of people who have, like my husband, been here for 30 years, even though they may be approaching pension age and can do nothing about the situation? Some EU nationals have been here for years and years, contributing to the country, and to undermine what they have done for us is absolutely despicable. The Minister says that he hopes to be able to reassure them and give them certainty. He could do so now. Just do it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Alison Thewliss: That is challenging, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2013, Glasgow adopted the slogan “People Make Glasgow”. That could not be more apt at present, because EU citizens—in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends who represent parts of the city—make it the vibrant and wonderful city that it is. According to the 2011 census, 5.2% of residents in my constituency were born in EU countries; that is double the figure for the Scottish population as a whole.
In the academic year 2014-15 alone, more than 4,000 EU students enrolled at academic institutions across Glasgow. I heard during the week from Professor Philip Cooke, who is professor of Italian history and culture at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. He says:
“Since I started teaching here I have seen a radical shift in the composition of the student body—at last week’s graduation ceremony there were students from Latvia and Bulgaria receiving degrees in Italian, as well as many young Scots. The free movement of students facilitated by the Erasmus program has meant that I have taught, for example, Italian to English translation to mixed groups of students who have all greatly benefited from the different linguistic backgrounds of their peers... All of this—and I am not even going to mention European funding for research—is at risk following the referendum.”
He speaks of his own young children, who want to have the opportunity that I and others have had of going to Europe to travel and work.
We must not lose sight of the fact that politics is about people. Among the messages I have received this week is one from Courtney, a Greek national living in Queen’s Park in the south side of Glasgow, who sums up the anxiety and bewilderment that many people face:
“I, like all the other EU immigrants that are here, have broken no laws by settling here. I have been here for five years and am proud to call Scotland my home, meanwhile others have been here for decades. Since settling here I have started a long term relationship, taken work, paid tax, and done volunteer work. Like so many others I am happy to contribute to the local community and overall economy.”
I received a message just this morning from a ward sister at Glasgow royal infirmary who says that nurses there who have come from Poland are deeply concerned  about their future in the country. They are here, working and contributing, and they deserve to be able to stay.

Gavin Newlands: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would not take much for the Minister to reassure the citizens she has just mentioned? A caseworker in my office is from Finland. She is extremely uncertain at the moment about her future. As her employer, I, like many other employers, would like to know whether these citizens will continue to have rights. It would be easy for the Minister to stand up and say that they will continue to have the rights that they have at the moment.

Alison Thewliss: Absolutely. It would be a very easy thing for this Government to do.
This issue is not simply about EU citizens who have come here; it is about people in Scotland who want to have future opportunities. I had an email from Jemma Brown, who says:
“I am a classical musician with a fledgling international career living…in your constituency and I can see everything I’ve painstakingly worked for caving in upon me if my right to live and work in the EU is no longer straightforward.”
I met the owner of a coffee shop across the road from my son’s school who came from Portugal originally. He lived through fascism. He has travelled the world and come to live in Glasgow. I spoke to him on the Friday after the referendum result. He was heartbroken. Nothing I could say could console him or give him confidence that his future in Scotland was assured. I would like Ministers to reflect on that and come up with a strong message that I can give to people I know in Glasgow who do not know what their future holds.
The testimony I have received underscores the reality of the feelings of isolation that Brexit has caused. It is shameful that the Government have not done enough to tackle that or reassure those people about their future. My Home Office casework tells me that the dignity and respect that the Minister spoke of earlier is not a feature of the immigration system. Constituents from all over the world cannot get a fair break even to get into the UK. I have no confidence that the Home Office could even cope with dealing with the immigration status of EU nationals from all round Europe.
In stark contrast is First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s message to EU citizens living in Scotland following the referendum result. She made it perfectly clear that they are welcome in Scotland and that their contribution is valued. I unequivocally reject the notion that EU citizens could be considered as bargaining chips in any future negotiations. The Church of Scotland rejects that, too, and its representatives have been in touch to put that forward. I beg the Government to change their stance.

Chris Elmore: One of the most depressing conversations I have had in my eight weeks and four days as a Member of Parliament was a phone call on the day after the referendum from a Polish national who has lived not just in Wales but in my constituency for the past 35 years. She is 75 years of age, disabled and living in a care home. She wanted to speak to her MP. She was in tears because she thought  she was about to be deported. Speaking to her care home again this week, I found out that she is now even more confused and worried, and sadly some residents have taken to making comments such as, “When are you going home?” That cannot be right in modern Britain.
On the morning following the referendum, the 3 million EU citizens living in the UK woke up to the news that their entire future had been cast into doubt. People who have built their lives, families and careers in our country suddenly, and without a voice in the matter, found themselves in fear of having to leave the UK. Those men, women and children, many of whom feel as British and you and I, found that they could no longer carry on as usual. In the weeks that followed, instead of offering solace to those 3 million people, some in the Government have treated them as bargaining chips.
Far too often, political debate descends into nothing more than talk of statistics and figures. Today, we should allow ourselves to think of EU nationals in our country not as simple numbers on paper, but as the people they are—the 3 million people who now fear for the future, due to the callous remarks of Government Members, are mums and dads, neighbours and friends, teachers and police officers.
The referendum is over, the people have spoken and the UK is set to leave the European Union. Whatever my personal views on that decision, it has been made and we must respect it. However, in the months and years that now follow, we cannot allow ourselves to treat EU citizens living in Britain as political pawns. Today, we are here to debate whether those people should have the right to remain, and in doing so I ask the House to think of the EU nationals in our lives—our friends, neighbours and colleagues—and to consider how their absence would worsen each of our communities.
Across the United Kingdom, particularly in Wales, there have been reports of many who now feel unwelcome in Britain, whether a councillor in Cardiff who was told to get out of the country, or a campaigner in Caerphilly who was told to pack her bags and go home. Let us make no mistake: there is a correlation between the way that some in the Government speak of EU nationals and the hate crimes we have seen on our streets. If the Government continue to treat EU nationals as they have done, we will see those despicable consequences time and again. I hope that the House comes together to send a strong, clear message to say, “You are welcome” to every person born in the EU who has since built their life in the United Kingdom, and that it votes in favour of the motion.

Roger Mullin: I wish to compliment the shadow Home Secretary for the way he opened this debate. He set the matter out in exactly the right tone, with precision, and suggested how it could be resolved, and I am extremely grateful. I wish I could say that the Minister approached the issue with some degree of certainty, but he was able to offer only a convoluted and equivocal speech that will have generated not certainty but uncertainty in the minds of many EU nationals living in this country.
For me, this started not after the referendum but before it, when during Prime Minister’s questions I mentioned two of my constituents of German nationality  who were so upset at the nature of the debate on immigration that they left Scotland and said that they did not want to live in the United Kingdom while the referendum was going on, such were their feelings about the way they were characterised. That issue went even deeper for them, because they had lived in Scotland at the time of the independence referendum when they were allowed a vote. For the EU referendum, however, they were denied the vote that this House should have given them and that would have helped to relieve some of their pre-vote anxieties.
Many Members have constituents who are caught in many different situations. Not only have those two constituents of mine already left—I am trying to persuade them to return to Scotland—but I heard yesterday from a local friend who is a mortgage broker and said that a couple who were due to buy their first home in Scotland withdrew at the last minute saying, “We’re EU citizens. We cannot take the risk of investing here when such uncertainty lies over us today.”

Stewart McDonald: Does that put to bed the lie that the Government have a long-term economic plan?

Roger Mullin: I always thought that it was rather fanciful thinking on the Government’s part that they knew what a long-term economic plan might look like. We need not a long-term economic plan, but short-term and immediate action for every EU national who lives in this country.
One lady wrote to me in concern because her husband is from Denmark and is anxious about what will happen to them. She asked, “Will our family be split up?” These are anxieties and the Minister might say, “Well, some of those anxieties are ill-founded.” But the anxieties are not ill-founded if the Government lack clarity. If the Government decline to give the clarity and certainty they need, people’s uncertainty and their worries are perfectly legitimate. Minister, it is time to act. It is not too late: do the right thing and do it now.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your reassurance. Resignations can come at a bewildering pace these days in Westminster, so can you tell the House whether we still have a Government Whips Office? For the bulk of the debate there has been only one Government Back Bencher in the Chamber. That used to be the job of the Government Whips Office. Have they given up?

Natascha Engel: That is not a point of order and we are running very short of time.

Ian Blackford: As always, it is a pleasure to follow my old friend the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin). [Hon. Members: “Young friend!”] He is young at heart.
The motion states that men, women and children should not be used as bargaining chips in negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU. I want to associate myself with that statement. Many of us will have had conversations with worried citizens living in the UK who come from  Europe. Last Friday in my constituency, I arranged to meet a French national, a teacher in a secondary school, who, like so many of those who have come to live in our country, is making a valuable contribution within our communities. She wants to stay here, but now feels deeply unsettled and frightened that she may not be in a position to remain in the longer term. The conversation I had, with my constituent explaining her fears and anxieties, will be replicated by many of the 173,000 EU citizens living in Scotland.
Where is our humanity to those living among us—our friends, neighbours and colleagues who are fearful as to whether they will have the right to remain here? That is why my colleague, Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, is right to call on the UK Government to guarantee the rights of all those who are living here who are EU citizens. We have a moral and ethical right to enshrine the rights of those who are here legitimately. The Government could do this today. They should have the courage to extend the hand of friendship to those who are here and call this place home. Why would any Government want to cause unnecessary fear and alarm to those who are here legitimately? We should be saying, “You are welcome to stay on a permanent basis.” To do anything less is unacceptable.
The Home Secretary, a future potential Prime Minister of the UK, must make it clear that we recognise the right to remain for all EU citizens who are here. She could have participated in this debate today, put the record straight and allayed the fears of many EU citizens in our midst. Where is the Home Secretary?

Stewart McDonald: The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) tweeted that the Home Secretary is at a food-tasting event somewhere else in the Palace of Westminster.

Ian Blackford: The Home Secretary may be at a food-tasting event, but she has certainly left a bad taste in the mouth of many of us. When we look at her comments on television last Sunday, they fall way short of the moral leadership she should be taking. The Home Secretary said:
“We’re still a member of the EU and the arrangements still continue, so there is no change to their position currently. But of course as part of the negotiation we will need to look at the question of people who are here in the UK from the EU”.
If that is not a bargaining chip, I do not know what is. That is precisely what the Home Secretary put across last Sunday. That was an alarming statement: EU citizens by definition being used as a bargaining chip in negotiation. Home Secretary, we are talking about people living among us who do not want to be used as pawns in a negotiation. What a shameful position to take! That is not the position of a leader; it is an abrogation of responsibility from someone who aspires to leadership. In contrast to Nicola Sturgeon, who is providing leadership to EU citizens, the Home Secretary sees them as bargaining chips: leadership from our First Minister in Scotland, failure from Westminster.
Migrants make a valuable contribution to our country and are an important part of Scotland’s future, both in terms of contributing to sustainable economic growth and mitigating the effects of demographic change. I call on the Government to do the right thing today and give certainty to all our EU citizens. Fundamentally, from  those of us from Scotland, there is a very strong message: we voted to remain and the best way to protect the rights of our EU citizens is for Scotland to remain in the European Union.

Emily Thornberry: We have had a full debate, albeit in a short period of time. We have heard a huge amount of passion, and the opinion of the House is quite clear.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) about a Polish care home worker being asked regularly by residents when they are going home. We heard from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) about EU citizens being afraid to invest in his constituency. We learned during the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that the Home Secretary is not in her place for this debate because, as was tweeted, she was busy enjoying a taste of Colchester.
I think the technical term is a “stonking speech”, and we heard it from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who talked about a swastika with the word “Out” being daubed on tower blocks in her constituency. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that if the Home Secretary will not provide a guarantee, my right hon. Friend cannot reassure kids in the playground who are being told to “go home”.
We heard an important speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who said that the Vote Leave campaign was clear on this issue—that no one would be sent back—and asked why the Government had not honoured that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said that 36,000 EU migrants live in Westminster and that it was hard to overstate those people’s concern. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) explained the contribution of EU migrants to the NHS, while the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned Glasgow’s slogan, “People make Glasgow”, and told us that a high proportion of her constituents are from the EU.
We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who said that 46% of his constituents were born outside the UK. If the Home Secretary could say what she did about EU migrants, my hon. Friend wondered what might be said next about anyone else. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made it absolutely clear what we are calling for. He said that those here before 23 June must have certainty and he insisted that we cannot have different members of the Government saying different things.
We heard something from Conservative Members. I know that the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) are both strong characters who are quite capable of making themselves clearly understood. It would be only fair to say, however, that while they made a contribution to the debate, they rather pulled their punches. They do not normally do so.
Great disappointment has been expressed about the Home Secretary’s rhetoric and the fact that she has not bothered to turn up yet again. She has effectively reduced 3 million of our friends and neighbours to little more than pawns in the negotiations. The Minister for Immigration has been called upon once again to deliver his services and to act as a shield for the Home Secretary. He has come here and done his best. He has provided a lot of rhetoric, claiming that the Government will work to guarantee the rights of EU citizens and that they are confident that the negotiations will be successful. However, he cannot say when these negotiations will happen or when people will be able to have their rights guaranteed. He says that he will guarantee those rights, but he wants to link them to the rights of British citizens living across the rest of Europe. That means that they are being used as bargaining chips. That is what it means.
Frankly, it is all very well for the Immigration Minister to say that these people can fully expect their legal status to be properly protected and that he is confident that it will be, but the problem is that he says this will happen only through reciprocal arrangements and that the Government could not support any attempt to pre-empt it. That is not enough for people to build their lives on. That is not enough for people to know that they can remain in the UK and be able to invest in our country, fall in love, work and continue to contribute to our country. That is not enough. We are ashamed, and the Minister should be ashamed. Three million people should not be treated in this way. They have come to this country in good faith.
It is quite simple. The Minister is able to get up today and clarify the position for those who have been here since before the referendum. It is wrong for the Government to say different things to all these people. We can see and we all know that there has been a rise in racism and attacks, so that people are feeling profoundly insecure. It is in the Minister’s hands to do something about it. He has a responsibility not only to fight back against the thuggish behaviour that we can see happening right now in our communities, but to provide more than just rhetoric. He can do something about this.

Conor McGinn: Like me, my hon. Friend is both a British and an Irish citizen, and I think she understands the difficulty very acutely. Will she urge the Government to respect the reciprocal rights enjoyed by Irish citizens in the UK and British citizens in Ireland, and to make clear that they, as well as the rights of all the other EU citizens who currently reside in the UK, will be absolutely guaranteed and protected?

Emily Thornberry: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—and yes, I should declare an interest. I come from generations of EU nationals. Indeed, the Thornberry brothers built much of Camden. We have made a great contribution to this country, and of course we want the security of knowing that we can come into this country and remain here. We need that reassurance. The Irish need it, but the other EU citizens need it too. It is the Minister’s hands to give us that reassurance, and he should do so.
This is not just an outrage in moral terms; it is also, in my view, a completely cack-handed negotiating strategy. Ministers suggest that they should not guarantee the rights of EU nationals in Britain until similar guarantees  have been provided by the rest of the EU. It shows poor judgment, to say the least, for a would-be Prime Minister to embark on negotiating an exit deal with such an apparent lack of trust in the good faith of our partners, or former partners. If, as has been promised, the UK can expect the best possible deal in the Brexit negotiations, we really must do better than that.
As has been said throughout the debate, it is fundamentally wrong to treat valued members of our society and our communities as mere bargaining chips. We must never forget the human faces behind the numbers. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they are not being treated as bargaining chips, but they are. By linking EU migrants in the UK with British citizens in the EU, he is putting them on the table and behaving just as he does when he negotiates agricultural subsidies and export regulations. That sends completely the wrong message.
These are people. They are people with real faces, whose children are in our playgrounds. They work all over our country, they invest in our country, and we need them. We have some of the best. They have come to our country, and they deserve to have some form of security, because they cannot build their lives without it. They should not be holding their breath until such time—the Minister is unable to tell us exactly when—as their future may or may not be secured.
After all, 3 million of our doctors, nurses, teachers and small business owners come from elsewhere in the EU. They are our neighbours and our friends, and many of them who are, like me—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)—second-generation EU migrants, are our kith and kin. They have the same inherent value as any one of us in the Chamber today, and it is incumbent on us to make that principle clear.
The Government have cast a shadow over the futures of millions, and that is a matter of huge regret. Why was it not considered in advance of Brexit? If the Government had decided to have a referendum, why was there no plan B? Why are they scrambling into a position at this stage? Why have the futures of so many people been made so insecure? How is it possible that a Government can go into a referendum without even thinking that the public might reach a different conclusion, and having a plan B as a result? This is the Government’s fault, but they can do something about it, and they should do something about it today.
If the Conservatives do not vote against the motion, Parliament’s position will be clear: we wish the 3 million people from the EU who are living here to stay, and we want their position to be clarified. Will that be of assistance to them? It is all that we can do to give them some security. However, with a click of his fingers, the Minister could make their futures properly secure by standing up now and saying that the futures of those who were here before the referendum are secure, that they are welcome, and that they will be able to live here.

Karen Bradley: I was not expecting to see you in the Chair now, Mr Speaker; it is a treat, and a great honour for me.
We have debated an extremely important issue today: the legal status of EU nationals following the EU referendum just under a fortnight ago and the decision by the British people to leave the EU. The people we are talking about—the 3 million EU nationals—are our friends. They are our colleagues, the people we work with, the people whose children are at school with our children, and we recognise that they are people and they have lives and they do need to have certainty as soon as possible. But it is also clear that once we leave the EU there is a whole range of issues that will need to be addressed, one of which is the status of British nationals elsewhere in the EU and the status of EU nationals here.

Zac Goldsmith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Karen Bradley: I am afraid I will not give way as I have very limited time and I do want to make sure there is time for the next debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, those are the consequences of the decision to leave the EU. It is not something we have shied away from; we were clear in advance of the referendum that it was an issue. The Prime Minister has also made it clear that decisions on issues relating to the UK’s exit from the EU will need to be made by a new Prime Minister.
Having listened to this debate today, there are three key points I want to make and on which we can all strongly agree. First, there is absolutely no question of EU nationals’ status or circumstances changing while the UK remains a member of the EU. I have heard Members’ contributions and the concerns of EU nationals about their status, including EU nationals in my constituency.

Zac Goldsmith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend has not been in the debate and I need to make sure there is time for the next debate.
Let me be clear: EU nationals can live, work and study here in the UK under the existing arrangements. They are able to be accompanied, or joined by, family members, and after five years’ lawful residence they automatically acquire and benefit from a permanent right of residence in the UK. Once they have resided here for six years, they are also eligible to apply for citizenship. I know all will agree that it is vital that we make this clear and provide reassurance in our constituency surgeries and wherever else we are asked this question. May I also ask that we do not use this for party political point scoring? We should not be frightening people. They have a right to remain, and after five years’ lawful residence they automatically acquire and benefit from a permanent right of residence in the UK.
We are an open and welcoming nation and we do not want to create an air of uncertainty, but this is complicated and wider than just the right to live here, and as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, it is about the rights acquired under the EU treaties. This is a complicated point and it will take time to address.
This brings me to my second point. Hate crime of any kind must be confronted and tackled. It has absolutely no place in our society. I have been appalled to hear about some of the incidents that have taken place in the  last couple of weeks, and I am clear that nobody should be made to feel unwelcome in the country they call their home. I encourage all victims of hate crime to report it to the police, either at a police station, by phoning the 101 hotline or online through the True Vision website.
As I made clear in my statement to the House last week, we are taking steps to boost the reporting of hate crime and support victims, and we are providing a new fund for protective security measures at potentially vulnerable institutions and also offering additional funding to community organisations so they can tackle hate crime.
Our country is a strong multicultural and diverse nation. The rich coexistence of people of different backgrounds, faiths and ethnicities makes it the thriving and successful country it is. This is something we must treasure and strive to protect, and we must not allow those who seek to promote hatred and division in our communities to succeed.
Finally, I am pleased to note that we all agree that steps must be taken to guarantee the legal status of EU nationals, as the motion says, “with urgency”. This House feels strongly about this issue and that is a testament to the invaluable contribution made by EU nationals to the UK economy and our communities. This is welcome and to be embraced now and in the future.

Zac Goldsmith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is making some strong points about the rise of racist incidents over the last few weeks, but it is important to emphasise that there is absolutely no prospect at all of any Government of any party repatriating European migrants who are living and working in this country. I beg the Government to provide the reassurance that millions of people are looking for—if not today, then soon. It really is a very simple point.

John Bercow: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record and the Minister is welcome to reply if she wishes and not if she does not.

Karen Bradley: I will just say that if my hon. Friend had heard the opening statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, he would have heard that point at that stage.
We fully expect that the legal status of EU nationals living in the UK and of UK nationals in EU member states will be properly protected, but we must not forget our duty to UK citizens who have chosen to build a life in an EU member state. Addressing that issue is a priority that we intend to deal with as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend and I have said, it is a complicated matter with a range of considerations and detailed work is needed to examine the full range of circumstances of EU nationals and to ensure that any decisions taken have no unforeseen or unintended consequences.
I want to give some examples from today’s debate. What I heard from the Opposition Front Bench was that anybody who was here on 23 June has automatic rights and that that will be the cut-off date. If someone arrived on 24 June, however, would the points-based system of the right hon. Member for Birmingham,  Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) apply to them? Would they be repatriated? Is it the case that somebody who arrived on 24 June is no longer attracted to staying in the UK? This is a really complicated matter, and we must ensure that we get it right.

Emily Thornberry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Karen Bradley: I am sorry, but I want to make some progress. I did not intervene on the hon. Lady.
In conclusion, EU nationals can have our full and unreserved reassurance that, whether they arrived on 22 June, 23 June or 24 June, there has been no immediate change to their right to enter, work, study and live in the UK as a result of the EU referendum. I would like to reassure EU citizens up and down the country that we recognise the huge contribution that they make to our economy, our health service, our schools, our care sector, our communities and in so many other ways. We will act fairly towards them just as we expect other EU countries to act fairly towards our citizens living there.
However, as has been set out today, any decision to pre-empt our future negotiations would risk undermining our ability to protect the interests of EU and British nationals alike and to get the best outcomes for both. We will look to secure the best deal for EU citizens just as we will seek to secure the best deal for British citizens in the EU. That is the responsible approach and that is what we will do.
Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 245, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that there are approximately three million nationals of other EU member states living in the UK; further notes that many more UK nationals are related to nationals of other EU member states; rejects the view that these men, women and children should be used as bargaining chips in negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU; and calls on the Government to commit with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain.

John Bercow: Just before we proceed to the second of the Opposition day debates, I move to say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), that it was typically gracious and kind of her to say that she was pleased to see me in the Chair. Perhaps I could say that the sentiment is reciprocated—I was highly delighted to see her at the Dispatch Box. I would of course be so in any circumstances, but especially now as I come to the Chamber having just celebrated with some enthusiasm the truly stunning comeback victory at Wimbledon of my all-time tennis hero, Roger Federer, who saved three match points before getting through to the semi-final for the 11th time. The hon. Lady will understand why I am in such good spirits.

NHS Spending

Diane Abbott: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Vote Leave group during the EU referendum campaign claimed that an extra £350 million a week could be spent on the NHS in lieu of the UK’s EU membership contribution; further notes that senior figures who campaigned, including the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the Rt hon. Member for Surrey Heath have subsequently distanced themselves from that claim; and calls on the Government to set out proposals for additional NHS funding, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire on 4 July 2016.
It is a pleasure once again to face the Secretary of State for Health.
Nobody can doubt that much of the case that was made by the Vote Leave EU campaign was based on assertions that have since crumbled. For instance, within hours of the vote to leave the European Union, the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, said that taking back control of immigration did not necessarily mean cutting it. That will have been news to millions of people who voted to leave.
We also heard that there was no hurry to get on with leaving the EU. Why then the urgency of the campaign? The most striking reversal of all came from Nigel Farage. Within hours of the vote, he said that it was a mistake for the Vote Leave campaign to claim that leaving the EU would mean £350 million a week more for the NHS. Some of us were surprised by that, because this was no ordinary campaign slogan; it was painted on the side of the Vote Leave battle bus, which travelled thousands of miles up and down the country. It was emblazoned on the backdrop to speeches by the luminaries of the Vote Leave campaign. The British public is entitled to ask: where is the £350 million a week and when can we expect to see the Government start pumping that new money into our NHS? We all know about the financial and other pressures already facing the NHS.

Adrian Bailey: Does my hon. Friend not think the public are also entitled to ask where the serried ranks of leave campaigners are today?

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not see a single solitary leave campaigner in the Chamber this evening. It makes me wonder what the whole campaign was about. Was it about their egos? Was it some elaborate Eton wall game? Are they not concerned that the public may have been misled?
As I was saying, we know about the financial pressures already facing the NHS. A survey by the Healthcare Financial Management Association of 200 NHS finance directors in hospitals and clinical commissioning groups reveals that no fewer than one in five believe that the quality of care will worsen in 2016-17, and even more of them—one in three—fear that care will deteriorate in 2017-18 as a result of financial pressures. Waiting times, access to services and the range of services offered were seen to be among the most vulnerable areas. There is no doubt that those pressures will be made worse when we leave the European Union.

Keith Vaz: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend most warmly on her appointment as the shadow Secretary of State for Health. We miss her on the Back Benches, but we are delighted that she has reached the dizzy heights of the shadow Cabinet.
One place where we are feeling the pinch is in diabetes. We have had a number of reports that the DESMOND and DAFNE—diabetes education and self-management for ongoing and newly diagnosed, and dose adjustment for normal eating—schemes to provide structured education for type 1 and type 2 diabetics, are being cut. Does my hon. Friend agree that prevention is so important that we should ring-fence resources to deal with the crisis affecting diabetics?

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that important point. We are seeing pressures on public health services and expenditure across the piece. What he says about ring-fencing money for diabetes is very important and I support him.
The Health Foundation think-tank says that
“Leading economists are…unanimous in concluding that leaving the EU will have a negative effect on the UK economy”.
As a result, the NHS budget could be fully £2.8 billion lower than currently planned by 2019-20. In the longer term, the NHS funding shortfall could be at least £19 billion by 2039, equivalent to £365 million a week—and that assumes that the UK is able to join the European economic area. If that does not happen, the shortfall could be as high as £28 billion, or £540 million a week.
Those figures are not just numbers in a ledger. We know what poor care means in practice. Today’s Care Quality Commission report on North Middlesex University Hospital revealed a series of terrible incidents: an evening when only one commode was available for more than 100 patients; a patient left sitting on a bedpan for more than an hour; and a patient who lay dead in A&E for four and a half hours before being found. We can foresee similar consequences in other hospitals if pressures bear down on the NHS budget, not only because of all sorts of externalities, but because we leave the EU.
We know about the endemic problems in the NHS. Earlier today, we discussed the junior doctors rejection of the Government’s new contracts. We know that nurses and midwives are in uproar because of the Government’s plan to scrap the bursaries that would-be nurses and midwives rely on when they are studying. A fresh injection of cash, as promised by the Vote Leave campaign, could not be more timely.
While we are talking about the implications of Brexit for the NHS, I remind Members that any restrictions on freedom of movement—a subject that is being discussed extensively in the wake of the Brexit vote—will be little less than disastrous for the NHS; 55,000 men and women in its workforce originate from the EU. It would be completely catastrophic for social care; 80,000 men and women out of 1.3 million workers in that field are EU nationals.
I represent a constituency that voted strongly for remain—I think that Hackney had the second highest remain vote in the country—and I believed that a remain vote was in the best interests of the UK, but as we heard earlier today in the House, there has been a horrifying upsurge in racist abuse and hate crime, triggered by the Brexit vote. It is as if people now have permission  to be openly racist. It is interesting that Vote Leave supporters are now distancing themselves from anti-immigrant politics, but the unpleasantness unleashed by the Brexit campaign is already poisoning public discourse. However, I believe strongly in democracy, so I believe that we have to respect the referendum vote. In many cases, it was a cry of pain and rage against Westminster elites, and that is something on which we all have to reflect.
The late Member for Chesterfield, the right hon. Tony Benn, who was an opponent of the EU to his dying day, said:
“My view of the EU has always been not that I am hostile to foreigners but I am in favour of democracy.”
I respect those people who voted to leave. My experience of the EU campaign is that people wanted information, were trying to compare competing claims, and were doing their best to exercise their right to vote responsibly. The turnout was high. Nobody wants to think that the Vote Leave campaign peddled deliberately bogus slogans. I speak on behalf of not just Labour Members, but the British voting public as a whole. At a time when money was never more needed for the NHS, when can we expect to see the £350 million a week extra for the NHS that the Vote Leave campaign promised would be a consequence of the Brexit vote—or was it deceiving the public?

Jeremy Hunt: Perhaps I will cut down my speech a bit. I give a particularly warm welcome to all my Back-Bench colleagues here; it is wonderful to see them coming out in support in such numbers. I thank the shadow Health Secretary for calling this debate. She is right to talk about the issues of NHS funding—though not particularly through this motion, which I will come on to speak about. I welcome her to her first Opposition day debate, as I welcomed her earlier to her first statement. This is a brief that she knows well, having been shadow Public Health Minister, and having campaigned on a lot of very important topics, including plain paper packaging for cigarettes. She has done a lot of work with the all-party sickle cell and thalassaemia group as well. I wish her luck in two areas. The first is with her parliamentary questions, after last week’s question to the Department for International Development about a drought in Indonesia, when it was in fact in the Philippines. Secondly, I wish her luck finding some Front-Bench colleagues, just as I need luck finding some Back-Bench colleagues in these debates.
We are in agreement on Brexit; we were both on the remain side, and I campaigned strongly with the hon. Lady. I agree with her that however much we may have disagreed with the vote, it is very important that we respect it. She and I both worried about the damage that it might do to our economy and society if we left, but we also agree that it would do incredible damage to something even more important than them—to our democracy—if the British people were to think that the Westminster establishment was trying somehow to ignore their decision.
From the reasonable tone of her comments, I know that the hon. Lady understands that Vote Leave was not speaking for the Government when it said that there would potentially be an extra £350 million for the NHS.  In fairness to the Vote Leave campaigners, at various points they clarified downwards that slogan on the side of the bus and said that they were really talking about a net figure of more like £100 million that could potentially go to the NHS, rather than £350 million.

Diane Abbott: rose—

Philippa Whitford: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I will give way first to the shadow Health Secretary, then to the Scottish health spokesperson.

Diane Abbott: If the Vote Leave campaigners brought down the figure that they thought could potentially be given to the NHS, why did they not repaint the wording on the bus?

Jeremy Hunt: That is, perhaps, not a question for me as a Government Minister to answer, but I take the hon. Lady’s point. I give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).

Philippa Whitford: My question has already been answered.

Jeremy Hunt: The point that many of us made in the referendum campaign is that even the net figure—the more like £100 million net contribution that we make to the EU—is not a figure that we can bank on with any certainty because, even if it did materialise after an exit from the EU, it would be negated by the very smallest of contractions in the economy, which would itself reduce the tax base and the amount of public spending available. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that that £100 million a week would be negated by a contraction in the economy as small as 0.6%. I do not think any of the economic forecasts said that the contraction would be as small as that; all of them said that it would be much bigger than that.

Jamie Reed: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about—with your permission, Mr Speaker—the lie on the side of the bus. As Secretary of State for Health, will he now, on behalf of the whole country, and particularly on behalf of people who were deceived and let down by that claim, take up with the Electoral Commission why that lie was allowed to stand for so long?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Let me give him a challenging reply. The trouble that we have—those of us who disagree with the outcome—is that that issue was exhaustively debated and, for whatever reason, people chose to disbelieve our concerns or decided that they were not worried about it.
I understand why the shadow Health Secretary has brought the motion before the House, but the reason it is a difficult one to debate is that essentially the argument about the £350 million, or the £120 million, or the £100 million is dependent on the state of the economy. That is something that we cannot know now, only 12 days after the Brexit vote result. However worried we are about the impact of that vote, in discussions about the economy we have to be careful not to talk it down, because in the end we have a responsibility to recognise that there may be opportunities and we need to make the most of the ones that exist.

Adrian Bailey: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. On the other hand, I believe the Treasury has downgraded our prospective growth rate from 2% to 0.5%. Presumably, future spending plans will be based on that revised future growth rate. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to start making the assumptions that he has been wary of making so far?

Jeremy Hunt: It is perfectly reasonable to make the assumptions that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and there are plenty of reasons why we could look at some of the early impact on the economy even in the past 12 days and be concerned about the potential impact on the tax base and public spending more broadly. My nervousness as a Minister about talking those things up is that I do not want to talk down the British economy. Even though, as I say, I campaigned against the Brexit vote, I recognise that we are now going to leave the EU, I want the economy to be successful and I want us to make the most of the opportunities that face us.
On the broader issue of NHS funding, this debate indicates that there is some consensus—the Prime Minister mentioned this earlier today at Prime Minister’s questions—on the umbilical link between the health of the economy and the amount we are able to spend on the NHS. We are proud of the fact that we were able to protect spending in the last Parliament and to increase it by £10 billion in this Parliament on the back of a growing economy. Given that Health is the second biggest spending Department, we must recognise that it is vital to the NHS that we maintain that growth, despite the choppy period we are possibly about to go through.

Michael Weir: I understand what the Secretary of State is saying about the health of the economy, but this debate also links to the previous debate because of the number of EU nationals who work in the health service. Has he made any estimate of the cost to the health service if all these EU nationals were forced to leave the UK in the course of this Brexit?

Jeremy Hunt: We are currently doing the analysis the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, but I should just say to him that I accept the Home Secretary’s assurance and confidence that we will not end up in a situation where EU nationals, upon whom we absolutely depend in the health and social care system, and who do an absolutely outstanding job, would not be allowed to remain in the UK. She has said she is very confident that we will be able to negotiate a deal whereby they are able to stay here as long as they wish and to continue to make the important contribution they do, and I accept that assurance.

Gareth Thomas: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir), will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that he will release that analysis and that it will be sufficiently comprehensive to allow us to see a regional breakdown of the significance of EU nationals working in our health service?

Jeremy Hunt: I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s request, and I will, of course, try to be as transparent as possible with Parliament about all the analysis and research we do on these topics.

Jamie Reed: On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has just made about having an assessment if we do end up, essentially, forcibly repatriating EU citizens in the United Kingdom, there will of course be a flip side: something like 3 million British expats in the EU would have to return to the UK as well. Many of them are, to put it politely, of pensionable age, with challenging health demands in many regards. Will the Secretary of State also provide an assessment of what effect that would have on the national health service?

Jeremy Hunt: I am sure that that is analysis we can do, but I cannot do it at the Dispatch Box as a direct response to the hon. Gentleman. However, as I am sure he is well aware—we made this point during the whole Brexit referendum debate—we have reciprocal health arrangements with other EU countries at the moment. Those are immensely convenient to people travelling to and visiting other European countries, because they mean those people can access healthcare completely free of charge. The bill is actually sent to the Government, and that arrangement includes pensioners who have retired to Spain and France and Italy as well. It would be very sad if, as a result of the new relationship with the EU, we lost that convenience. That is one of the reasons why I am confident that other EU countries will be happy for British pensioners to remain in them. As long as those countries are able to charge us for the healthcare costs, the burden to them should be minimal.

Rosena Allin-Khan: The Secretary of State spoke about NHS spending. Does he agree that cuts to local government spending on social care are putting increased financial pressures on the NHS? At St George’s hospital, a cost of £1.3 million has been attributed to inefficient discharges.

Jeremy Hunt: First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her place as a doctor and as someone who knows a great deal about NHS matters? Although I am sure we will not agree on every health matter, it is always valuable and a great asset to have someone with medical experience in the House, and I am sure she will make a huge contribution in that respect. She is absolutely right to say that what happens in the social care system has a direct impact on what happens in the NHS, and that we cannot—as, in fairness, happened under Governments of both colours over many years—look at the NHS and the social care system as completely independent systems when we know that inadequate provision in the social care system has a direct impact on emergency admissions in A&E departments. She is right to make that point.
Let me make a broader point in concluding my comments. I think that there would be agreement across this House on the huge pressure on the NHS frontline at the moment, and that there is recognition of some fantastic work being done by front-line doctors and nurses to cope with that pressure. I shall give a couple of examples of the extra work that is happening, compared with six years ago. The A&E target is to see, treat and discharge people within four hours. Every day, we are managing to achieve that, within the four-hour target, for 2,500 more people than six years ago. On cancer, we are not hitting all our targets, but every single day we  are doing 16,000 more cancer tests, including 3,500 more MRI scans, and treating 130 additional people for cancer. There are some incredible things happening.
However, we all recognise, and this perhaps lies behind the Opposition’s concerns in bringing this motion to the House, that in healthcare we now deal with the twin challenges of an ageing population, in that we will have 1 million more over-70s within the next five years—a trend that is continuing to grow—and of the pressure of scientific discovery, which means we have new drugs and treatments coming down the track. They are exciting new possibilities but also things that cost money. I for one, as Health Secretary, believe that as soon as economic conditions allow, we will need to start looking at a significant increase in health funding. That is why it is incredibly important, as we go through the next few years negotiating our new relationship with Europe, that we work very hard to protect the economic base that we have in this country, the economic success that we have started to see, and the jobs that do not just employ a lot of people but create tax revenues for this country. It is incredibly important that we pilot the next few years with a great deal of care, because what happens on the economy will have a huge impact on the NHS.

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I have almost concluded, but I will give way one last time.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and, if he will forgive me for saying so, temporarily fond of him as a result, because he is allowing me to raise a particular constituency concern. Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents, currently has a deficit of almost £100 million and is having to axe 140 staff posts as a result of the lack of funding for my local clinical commissioning group, by comparison with other parts of London. Will he undertake to look specifically at the issues facing Northwick Park hospital and Harrow clinical commissioning group as his further analysis of the need for additional spending in the NHS is taken forward?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to do so. I have visited that hospital, where the challenges very much reflect what the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) said about links to the social care system. It was clear to me that the staff in the A&E department are working incredibly hard getting people through it, but struggling to discharge people from the hospital, which is why they were not hitting their target.
I have just been handed a note by a ministerial colleague, Mr Speaker, which I hope you will indulge me and let me read out, because I have never been handed such a note before. It says: “Apparently everyone wants to go and watch Wales play, so Whips happy if you felt you wanted to shorten your remarks.” On that basis, I will conclude by thanking the shadow Health Secretary for bringing this motion to the House and for her comments in support of it.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is not only an experienced member of the Cabinet but a very seasoned parliamentarian, and I think he is well attuned to the feeling in the House, as I am sure that other colleagues will now also be—not that I am hinting or anything.

Philippa Whitford: God, the pressure.
We recognise that this figure of £350 million a week chimed with people in the country, because people are concerned about the funding of the NHS. The Secretary of State for Health talks about an extra £8 billion going forward, plus the additional £2 billion that was added to that, which was for bailing out massive debts. However, that is a change of description. Normally, funding is described as being for the Department of Health, but that is just NHS England. Public Health England and Health Education England were facing cuts of £3.5 billion. Therefore, the extra money going forward is only £4.5 billion. We have heard Members talk about their local trusts being in deficit. This is now so widespread, it cannot be blamed on management.
Despite the fact that the NHS somehow always managed to come out just in the black up to April 2013 and has been careering into the red ever since, the Secretary of State never seems to accept that this is to do with the Health and Social Care Act 2012 changes and the huge administration costs of outsourcing and fragmentation. The Secretary of State lays the blame for all this with agency staff.
Given the debate that we have just had on EU nationals working in this country, particularly in our public services, I have to say that we could be facing an absolute meltdown. We have 50,000 nurses and doctors from the EU in the NHS, and almost 80,000 careworkers. The Minister for Immigration hinted that those who have been here for over five years can stay, but that their benefits and rights may not be quite the same. So my husband, who is from Germany, can stay, but is his pension going to disappear? He has worked here for 30 years, but what protections will he no longer have? What about the people who have been here for less than five years—the high-flying researchers, academics or medics —who could go somewhere else? Do the Government really think that these people are just going to sit at home with their families until the last possible minute? No, we are going to lose them, and agency costs for nurses and doctors will go through the roof. For social careworkers, it will not matter: they do not earn over £35,000, so they are unlikely to get to stay, and we are unlikely to be able to replace to them.
As well as the fact that the £8 billion we always hear about is not actually £8 billion, we know that local government has faced huge cuts and, as was referred to earlier, that social care is where the real problem lies. The NHS money is just going to haemorrhage out the back door.
The £350 million a week figure that was painted on that bus was a disgrace. The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), talked about it being an Eton game, but I think that it was an Eton mess. People were just playing with the facts. The rebate was not included. Public service payments, such as the common agricultural policy and regional funds, were not included. However, as the Secretary of State says, when we get down to the £110 million or so a week, that does not include all the other benefits that support the NHS and our economy. How much will it cost us to take part in Horizon 2020? How much does Switzerland have to pay to be part of this?
This is going to cost a lot of money. The Secretary of State said that it would take a 0.06% fall in GDP to negate the £100 million, but economists estimate that the fall will be between 1% and 3%. We do not want that to happen, but all the experts agreed that that was the likely outcome.
Like most people in Scotland, I absolutely believed in the remain campaign, but to me, there was a poverty to the debate. Why are we having these two debates today instead of before 23 June? We had very little open discussion of the issues in this place. One of the problems is that we have never talked about anything good that we have got from the EU in the past 40 years. Of course, I have been lucky—I got my other half from the EU—but, to be honest, most of us have had many gains. We have cleaner air and cleaner water, and we have tackled acid rain. We have cleaner beaches. We have a single European medicines agency, so new drugs get to patients quicker. That agency is located here in London, but it is unlikely to remain here.

Andrew Murrison: I always listen very carefully to what the hon. Lady says, but is she not being a little unfair on the United Kingdom? I seem to remember that the Clean Air Act 1956 set the bar for the European Union in the regulation of one of the areas that she has identified—namely, the cleanliness of the air that we breathe.

Philippa Whitford: I was not on the planet in 1956, so I do not quite remember. We know from the recent cheating that there is a lot more work to be done on the control of car emissions, which cause a lot of ill health, but some of the progress in that area has come from EU regulation. Problems such as poor air quality and climate change cannot be dealt with by one country alone; we need to work together. In a health sense, we have had massive gains in the past 40 years, but politicians have never talked about that.
The EU has been a great whipping boy. All that the public have heard about the EU in the last 40 years is, “It wasnae my fault; the EU made me do it,” or stories about straight bananas. That is the responsibility of everyone who has had access to a microphone or spoken in this place about the EU. We should not be surprised that when people had the £350 million figure drummed into them by being on that bus and on the news every night, they would fall for it. The mainstream media has a lot to answer for in not challenging these figures and not asking, “Exactly what is your plan? Exactly where is that money going to come from?” We should not blame people who want extra money for the NHS for wishfully accepting those claims, even when the cracks appeared around the edges.
Part of the problem has been the quality of the debate. Several of my colleagues warned people who believed in remain not just to go for a “Project Fear” type campaign, and I think that running such a campaign was a mistake. People think that “Project Fear” worked in Scotland, but in actual fact Better Together support started, as a percentage, in the mid-60s and fell to 55%. We started at 27%, and we ended up at 45%. “Project Armageddon” clawed back a little bit in the last two weeks, when we were told that the supermarkets would  go and the banks would go, and that we would have no money and no food to buy, but a negative campaign of saying that the sky will fall does not lead to success.

Michael Weir: Does my hon. Friend agree that difference was that the yes campaign in Scotland came forward with a positive vision to combat “Project Fear”, but that was totally lacking in the EU referendum?

Philippa Whitford: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. If we had spent more time reminding people honestly of what the EU has brought us, which includes all the people who have been working in our health and social care services, we might have helped them to realise that we have been gainers, not losers.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in the case that she is setting out. Is not part of the reason why people voted the way they did because they actually wanted to give additional money and resources to an NHS and social care system that has been badly starved of cash? That is particularly true of social care. People have seen their elderly relatives being unable to get the help, the aids and the adaptations that they need in the home, which piles pressure on to the NHS. They wanted the NHS to have that cash.

Philippa Whitford: I totally agree. Of course, we all want the NHS to have more money. It is the United Kingdom’s single most prized possession and creation. The problem is that we did not counter the argument that it was struggling because people from the EU were taking up the appointments and the beds. EU nationals are much more likely to be looking after us than to be standing in front of us in the queue. There is an absolute responsibility on us all, particularly on the missing members of the leave campaign. This is very much a case of a big boy doing it and running away—very, very quickly.

Andrea Jenkyns: As somebody who was in the leave campaign, I think it is important that we remember that we worked across parties on it, whichever side we were on. In Yorkshire, I worked with colleagues from the Green party, the Labour party and UKIP, although I did not work with the SNP, obviously. It is the responsibility of both camps. I have seen “Project Fear” in both camps.
We need to move on from this now. It is pure economics. If we are pulling out of the EU, as the public have voted to do and as I am personally happy that we are doing, we must make sure that we start talking Britain up, otherwise we will talk ourselves into a recession. Members on both sides of the House need to pull together and talk Britain up. At the end of the day, both sides could have handled this better.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) answers the intervention, I must remind the House that this debate is not about the EU campaign. We are talking specifically about the NHS. I understand that the hon. Lady was—perfectly reasonably—using examples, but we must not stray any further.

Philippa Whitford: I totally agree. It is just that the paucity of the debate has allowed such an inaccurate figure to endure.
We are where we are. Going forward, we need to look at the realities and what the economy will allow. But there are challenges. I ask the Secretary of State to speak to his colleague in the Home Office and try to deal with the issue of EU nationals working in the NHS. The cost of replacing them with agency staff will be absolutely crippling.

Joan Ryan: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and agree with many of her points.
I share concerns expressed about the misleading statements made on the national health service during the EU referendum campaign. Many of my constituents who voted to leave were swayed by the pledge that a future outside the European Union could result in £350 million extra every week being invested in our NHS—and if not £350 million, then £120 million would do very nicely at the moment and make a big difference. Whether they voted leave or remain, people feel very disillusioned with such misleading statements.
The breathtaking speed with which prominent figures from the leave campaign have backtracked on that promise shows how hollow their words really were. People on both sides of the debate are upset and angry about what has happened. They understand that our hospitals, doctors and nurses need better support and more investment. I therefore fully support the motion.

Andrea Jenkyns: I completely agree with the right hon. Lady that we need more investment, but does she agree that the Government are right to point out that we have invested an extra £8 billion in the NHS already?

Joan Ryan: If the hon. Lady looks at my constituency she will see a perfect storm when it comes to health funding. We are underfunded in public health, in social care, in primary care and in acute care. She can come up with whatever figure she likes, but the experience on the ground is that we are suffering very badly.
I will come on to talk about the Care Quality Commission report, out today, about our hospital. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has seen it, but if she wants to talk about increased spending, I suggest she looks at that report. What it says about what is going on in an acute care hospital is unprecedented.

Jamie Reed: Two of the prominent leave campaigners who endorsed the £350 million figure are now running to be leader of the Conservative party and our future Prime Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those two people should be brought to this House and made to explain to the country just where they will get the £350 million from?

Joan Ryan: I absolutely agree. Nothing makes the public feel more disillusioned and separated from the political and democratic process than to be given promises by politicians who, once the public have given their vote to them, walk away from those promises. That is not acceptable.

Karin Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as well as the £350 million promise, the issue of access to GP primary care appointments caused a lot of anxiety in many communities? That is the fault not only of the funding situation but of the way in which primary care has been run down in the past six years.

Joan Ryan: The lack of primary care—particularly in London but also elsewhere—is a key factor behind the huge pressures on our accident and emergency departments and urgent care. No wonder people go there when they cannot get an appointment.

Phil Boswell: It takes four years to train a nurse and five years to train a doctor, but the divorce proceedings triggered by article 50 will be done in two years. It clearly presents a critical problem for NHS funding if staff leave when the UK leaves the EU.

Joan Ryan: As we have heard, Brexit will present us with many problems, particularly with health care provision. Not only are we not getting large sums of money, but we will actually be worse off. We will face many challenges because of that decision, and if the promise of £350 million led people to vote in a particular way that will undermine the funding we receive, that is a desperate state of affairs.
People feel badly let down by the leave campaign’s empty pledges on the NHS over the past few months, and residents in Enfield are deeply disenchanted by the Government’s failure to fulfil their recent promises to our local health service. Before the 2010 general election, the then Leader of the Opposition—actually, he was then Prime Minister of the coalition Government—stood outside Chase Farm hospital in my constituency and vowed to protect its A&E and maternity units. By 2013, his Government had shut both departments. Many of us warned at the time that closing Chase Farm’s A&E department would put huge strain on other local health services, including North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, which is the subject of the CQC report that I referred to earlier. We were right, and almost three years since the decision to close Chase Farm’s emergency department, the NHS in Enfield has reached breaking point.
Earlier today the Care Quality Commission published its report into the standard of care at North Middlesex hospital, following a spot check by its inspection team in early April. It found that the closure of Chase Farm’s A&E has led to significant increases in patient numbers attending the emergency department at North Mid. Despite being one of the busiest A&E departments in the country, North Mid’s urgent and emergency services have been graded as “inadequate”, and patient safety has been compromised. Patients who arrive at the emergency department are not seen quickly enough by clinical staff, and they are waiting too long to be seen by a doctor. Some blue-light patients are being brought in, and hard-pressed nurses are dealing with them because no doctor is free to treat them.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend is making a strong case for her constituents and their hospital. Does she recognise that although the situation she  describes at North Middlesex hospital is particularly bad, such things have also been witnessed in many other parts of London, not least in north-west London where the London North West Healthcare NHS Trust has shut an accident and emergency department at Central Middlesex hospital? As a result, there has been a big increase in pressure at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents.

Joan Ryan: Absolutely. North Middlesex is just the first hospital to reach absolute crisis point, but I am well aware that other hospitals, particularly in outer London, are heading down a similar path and facing real difficulties. If we consider A&E waiting times, we see that hospitals are sliding into that difficult scenario.
Junior doctors and trainees have been left unsupervised in North Middlesex hospital’s A&E department at night, without competent senior support—in fact, no consultant has been available from 11 o’clock onwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to such cases. In one instance, one commode was available for 100 patients in the whole of the emergency department. Staff raised concerns about the lack of vital medical equipment, including missing leads for cardiac machines so they could not get an instant read-out. Trolleys in the resuscitation area lacked vital equipment. There was an oppressive, overbearing culture at the hospital that meant staff did not feel confident in raising concerns, and they even stopped reporting incidents of staff shortages, as management had not responded to them in the past.
The CQC report reinforces the findings of Health Education England and the General Medical Council. At a high-risk summit in May, the GMC threatened to withdraw junior doctor post-graduate trainees if the numbers of A&E staff and middle-ranking doctors and consultants were not increased. That would effectively close the busiest emergency department in London. This is an unprecedented situation. The future of North Mid A&E has been put at risk. Even medical trainees at the hospital are not prepared to recommend the A&E for treatment to their friends and family. In interviews with Health Education England, they said that that was
“because they felt the department was unsafe.”
My constituents have had to suffer the consequences of shocking mismanagement and a lack of leadership at North Mid. The chief executive is now on leave and I understand she is stepping down. Although there is a lack of leadership, she cannot be held solely responsible for what has happened. The Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have told us repeatedly that the NHS is safe in their hands, yet huge pressures have been placed upon North Mid due to a lack of central Government funding. Patient care has suffered further as a direct result of the hospital not having enough equipment, consultants, doctors and nurses. It has had to spend large parts of its budget on locums and agency nurses.
What is the Government’s solution to ensuring that hospital departments, such as those at North Mid, do not remain dangerously understaffed? Is it to divert a large amount of funding to help to solve this situation and put patients first? No: they decide to go to war with junior doctors over their contracts and abolish NHS  bursaries for student nurses, while we have hospitals going abroad to try to recruit staff. That is an insult to dedicated professionals who deserve our admiration, respect and support. The Government’s actions will discourage the future frontline staff we so desperately need.
The NHS is facing a huge financial challenge, so a commitment to spend an extra £350 million a week, or even £120 million a week, on the NHS in lieu of our EU membership was clearly a very attractive offer to our constituents. NHS England needs to plug a funding gap of £30 billion a year by 2021 and a few months ago it was revealed that nearly every hospital in the country was in deficit. We are obviously not going to get £350 million or £120 million a week and I think that that was always known by the leave campaigners. In fact, the Government are seeking to suck out £5 billion in savings through the sustainability and transformation programme. I know that savings and efficiencies, particularly in back-office services, can and must be found, but not at the expense of patient safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the former shadow Health Secretary, warned that the scale of savings required could
“not be delivered without putting patient care at risk… These ‘efficiencies’ will mean cuts to staff, cuts to pay, rationing of treatments. And it will be patients who suffer.”
Her analysis is spot on. We have witnessed the disastrous effects of this course of action in Enfield. We need more investment in North Middlesex University hospital, and in the NHS in general, not less. I join my parliamentary colleagues on the Labour Benches in calling on the Government to increase spending on our NHS. It is most regrettable that, given the urgent need for more funding and the very real and justifiable concerns of people in Enfield, they should have been led to be believe Brexit could possibly mean major new funding for the NHS.
In closing, I think I corrected myself wrongly. In the run-in to the 2010 general election, the current Prime Minister was, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, and he made a promise to keep our hospital open, which, when he became Prime Minister, he then closed. That kind of behaviour is very similar to what the leave campaigners did in promising money that does not really exist. It is hoodwinking the voter and it is not acceptable. It desperately undermines the voters’ faith in politics and democratic processes.

Jamie Reed: Before I begin, may I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House authorities for posting a picture of this Chamber on the popular social media and networking site Twitter? Its purpose—it has now been removed—was purely to demonstrate that, at the point of taking the picture, only two Conservative MPs were in the Chamber and both were Ministers. The other point I would like to make before moving on is how much, as a bereft supporter of the English national football side, I am looking forward to cheering on Wales in what I hope will be a victory against Portugal this evening.
The Cumbrian health economy is experiencing the most prolonged period of intense pressure, strain and threat that it has ever faced.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the body of his speech—I do not want to interrupt his argument—I want to thank him for the point he made and for his immediate action in removing the picture that he had tweeted. For the avoidance of doubt, it is simply not allowed, but as soon as he realised that he had done something that was not allowed, he acted immediately, and I thank him for doing so.

Jamie Reed: That is greatly appreciated, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Despite the dedicated and incredible efforts of local NHS staff in my constituency, I see health inequalities on a daily basis, and many of my constituents experience profound access challenges to health services in my constituency and elsewhere across Cumbria, caused in part by our inadequate transport infrastructure, but also by a clearly insufficient profile of investment in local services. So far, I am afraid to say, my calls for improvement have fallen upon deaf ears.
In north and west as well as east Cumbria, we are currently subject to the ongoing success regime process. Funding for the important second phase of the West Cumberland hospital has not yet been released by the Government, and the communities I represent are gravely concerned about the uncertain future facing our local health services, including beds not just at the West Cumberland, but at our local community hospitals in Keswick, Millom, Maryport and elsewhere—and that is before we even consider the profound challenges to primary care, too.
In spite of the challenges that we face and the strength of feeling in my constituency, the Health Secretary, who is no longer in his place, has paid not one visit to the West Cumberland hospital, or any of our community hospitals on whose behalf I speak tonight, in the four years in which he has held his position. Moreover, he has refused my invitation to visit West Cumbria to see for himself the unique challenges that we face in our part of the world. Without visiting the hospital, experiencing the transport inadequacies and seeing the vital work of consultant-led accident and emergency, maternity and paediatric services that the West Cumberland hospital provides, the Health Secretary cannot and does not understand the necessity for his immediate intervention in our troubled health economy.
Most recently, owing to the fact that the Health Secretary would not come to us, my constituents and I—health campaigners from across the piece—decided to go to him. West Cumbrian health campaigners, including Mike Bulman, Mahesh Dhebar, Rachel Holliday, Siobhan Gearing and the fantastic Pamela McGowan from the News & Star newspaper, planned to make a 700 mile round trip to London to meet the Health Secretary, to outline the challenges that our health economy faces and to put our case to him. However, at short notice, but coincidentally on the day after he announced his ambition to stand as leader of the Conservative party, the Health Secretary cancelled the meeting. The decision to cancel that meeting was seen by my community as the calculated insult that I am afraid it surely was.
I led the local campaigners instead to the Department of Health to meet the gracious and approachable Under-Secretary responsible for care quality—the Minister in  his place today. The delegation handed to him a confidential document containing the cases given to local campaigners by local mothers about babies who were likely to have suffered fatalities—and the mothers maternal fatalities, too—if consultant-led maternity services had been unavailable at the West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven. The Government are well aware that consultant-led maternity services at that hospital are non-negotiable and absolutely essential—whatever the successor regime that comes forward in the immediate future. Any other option would compromise the safety of local mothers and their babies.
It is clear to me, to my community and to Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, who visited my constituency only a few months ago, that consultant-led services must be retained and improved at West Cumberland hospital. Removing those services from Whitehaven would be dangerous—
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That at this day’s sitting the Motions in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 8.00pm; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Charlie Elphicke.)
Question agreed to.

Jamie Reed: As I was saying, the removal of those consultant-led maternity services would actively undermine the principle of a truly national health service, and will never be accepted by me or by my community. I am therefore deeply concerned by a recent report, based on a leaked e-mail, which suggests that the Success Regime is indeed considering the removal of maternity services from Whitehaven as one of the options on which it wishes to consult. That is appalling. If the Success Regime turns out to be a Trojan horse initiated by the Government to slash budgets and remove services, I have just one message to send to the Government today: my community will never accept that, and cannot and will never forgive it.
There is no doubt that consultant-led maternity services are what west Cumbrian women and their families need, want and deserve. Removing those services from the remotest constituency from Westminster in England, in terms of accessibility, would be not only unsafe, but without precedent in our country. It is clear that this move is being driven by the Government’s determination to cut costs, and not by the safety of mothers and babies.
My community now calls on the Government and those responsible for the Success Regime to make the immediate, clear and unequivocal commitment to consultant-led maternity services at West Cumberland hospital—and other services—that communities in west Cumbria deserve. Without a clear commitment to our consultant-led services, including a fully functioning consultant-led maternity service at West Cumberland hospital, it will be impossible for us to support the work of the Success Regime in the future.
I have since urged the entire community of west Cumbria to join me, and our local campaigners, in fighting any proposals to remove essential consultant-led services from West Cumberland hospital. We are a  community of campaigners, patients, families and NHS staff, united in our commitment to our local national health service, and we are determined to build a 21st century health economy, equipped to overcome the challenges that we face in my incredibly rural constituency. We will not allow the Government, by any means, to strip away our services, leaving a threadbare health service, unfit for purpose, to future generations in the community of west Cumbria. My community is determined; what we are missing is the immediate commitment, support and investment from the Government that we so clearly require.
Just two weeks ago the country voted to leave the European Union, and I regret that. Many of those voters, including a large number of my constituents, voted on the basis of their belief that a Brexit vote would result in an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. Since that vote, prominent members of the “leave” campaign have been quick to renege on a key promise that swung so many people behind their prospectus. As we observe the Conservative leadership contest, it appears likely that those prominent campaigners will wash their hands of the responsibility of delivering on the commitments that they made. In communities like mine, where people voted in the belief that their vote would help to fund the investments that we need in our health services, that is an unforgivable betrayal.
Now is the time for the Government to fulfil their responsibility to provide a truly national health service. My community needs and deserves no less than an immediate intervention to ensure the release of funding for the second phase of the redevelopment of West Cumberland hospital and a commitment to the retention and improvement of consultant-led services, including accident and emergency, maternity and paediatric services. We also require a commitment to the retention of beds at our community hospitals. Brexit campaigners in the Government, especially those who aspire to be not just the next leader of the Conservative party but the next leader of our country, have a particular responsibility to stand before the House and the country, and explain to all the people whom they knowingly deceived why they did it, where the money is coming from, and what they are going to do about it.

Julie Cooper: I want to begin by speaking about the NHS as experienced by my constituents. Getting an appointment to see a GP can be very difficult because recruitment of doctors in Burnley and Padiham is an enormous problem and many posts remain unfilled. This is not a temporary situation; this is how it is all the time.
The fact is staff do their best, but they are not magicians. Too often patients requesting an appointment are told to phone back the following day at 8.30 am and hope for a cancellation, and heaven forbid that a patient should want to have some continuity of care. This is especially difficult for the elderly and those suffering with mental illness. I tell the Minister that they really need to see a familiar face, and to have access to a GP with whom they have an established rapport. Sadly, they are denied this.
Unplanned admissions to hospital are also difficult. Patients often wait for hours on trolleys in cubicles and draughty corridors until a bed is available. This bed  queue is the direct result of the fact that there is a shocking shortage of quality support for the elderly and mentally ill in need of care in the community.
The elderly and mentally ill really do bear the brunt of an NHS in crisis. Every week in my surgery I hear of their suffering at the hands of a poorly resourced and inadequately staffed NHS. One lady told me only a couple of days ago that she took her daughter, who is self-harming and threatening to hang herself, to the mental health crisis unit. The unit was so busy that she had to wait 23 hours for a diagnosis, after which it was decided that she needed to be sectioned and admitted. For the next four days, because no bed was available, she slept in an easy-chair. At that point a bed was found in Potters Bar, London. The family of this lady, including her five-year-old daughter, live in Burnley, at a distance of over 200 miles. They cannot afford the train journey to visit her.
I mention all of this not as a criticism of any of our NHS workers—far from it; they are at the sharp end doing their best in an impossible situation. They work in the health service because they care, and it pains them to see patients treated in this way. I mention all of this, none of which is untypical, because it is this misery that the Brexit campaign spoke to.
The leading Brexiteers, who have been mentioned in this place already today, played out the most cruel deception. They promised in their campaign that if the UK left Europe the NHS would receive a funding boost of £350 million per week. This untruth—that is what it was—was not a mistake or a miscalculation, although it was totally reprehensible; it was a deliberate attempt to deceive the British public. When deception of this magnitude is pedalled by senior people, some of them Government members, who could blame people for believing that they would get a better NHS outside Europe?
Only hours after the referendum result was known the Brexit camp withdrew this promise of extra NHS funding because, of course, the fact is that it is this Conservative Government who starve the NHS of funding, not the EU.

Kirsty Blackman: Throughout this referendum campaign, there were numerous times when the campaigns were deceitful. There were numerous times when things that could not be promised were promised. Today, the Vote Leave official Twitter page still has a headline that says:
“We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.”
That is still on the Vote Leave Twitter page. In fact, they have not posted since the 23rd; I think they have screwed things up and run away.
I was a bit surprised that the Labour party’s motion did not mention the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), because when I looked up the £350 million claim, the first quote that came up was:
“Every week we send £350 million to Brussels. I’d rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had that control I would spend it on the NHS.”
That was said by the right hon. Lady, and it was patently untrue.
BBC Radio 4’s “More or Less” looked at the statistics. For anyone who does not listen to the programme, I should say that it is rather excellent and tends to debunk what politicians say on a regular basis. It does not usually say something is actually false, however; it will say “It’s not quite right.” But with this claim, it said that it was false.

Karin Smyth: I hear what the hon. Lady says about my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), but she is not in the Government so does not have the power to transfer that money to the NHS budget, unlike those on the Conservative Benches. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Kirsty Blackman: I agree that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston is not in the Government, but she was in the Vote Leave campaign and made those promises.
Going back to “More or Less”, Tim Hanford said:
“If we left the EU we wouldn’t have an extra £350 million to spend on the NHS.”
He also talked about the amount of money that we pay to the EU in comparison with the amount that comes back and said that the
“rebate is about £85 million a week. Unless you think we’d continue to get the EU rebate after we left the EU, it’s impossible to make the claim that there would be £350 million a week to spend on the NHS.”
He went on to say:
“We reckon that in the year 2014 the UK paid £280 million a week to the EU and received back £90 million a week in contributions to farmers and poorer regions and another £50 million in spending on British companies.”
Therefore, the most that could possibly have been available is £140 million, and there was no way that anybody in the leave campaign was ever going to spend all that money on the NHS.
It is not unusual, however, for people to be disingenuous. The people of Scotland are actually quite used to people telling untruths during referendums. The article below the now-famous headline, “The Vow”, stated:
“People want to see change.”
Well, they certainly delivered that. The article also said:
“We will honour those principles and values not only before the referendum but after.”
Ruth Davidson, leader of the Conservative party in Scotland, said on 2 September 2014:
“No means we stay in”
the EU. The Conservatives have completely failed to deliver on the promise they made to the people of Scotland. They are trying to drag Scotland out of the EU against our will.
This Conservative Government have a terrible record of making disastrous pledges, mostly because I think they did not expect to have a majority. They thought that they could write anything they wanted into their manifesto and then backslide on it because they were not going to have a majority. They had the fiscal charter, which was disastrous and condemned us to austerity. They had the removal of the subsidy for onshore wind, which was also disastrous. They had the pledge to have an EU referendum and they thought that they could avoid that one because they would not get a majority, but now look at what has happened.
There was also the disastrous, awful, horrendous migration cap. I am faced with constituents most weeks who sit in my office and explain to me what they do for their community and the work that they do in local government or the NHS. They talk about their volunteering and say to me, “Why does this Government want to send me back to another country?” The only answer that I can possibly give them is that this Government signed up to a migration cap and are therefore trying to reduce the number of people here based not on how hard they work, how much they give to their community or how much they put into NHS services, for example, but on trying to reduce the headcount. The Government’s behaviour is absolutely ridiculous.
What does that mean for the future of political campaigning? People across the UK are looking at the pledges, such as the one that is still on the Vote Leave Twitter page saying that £350 million should be spent on the NHS, and their trust in politics and politicians is being eroded further than ever before. If we want to try to bring things back, we are going to have to work incredibly hard and be incredibly truthful. Our campaigning is going to have to be incredibly positive. The fear factor inspires nobody, and we are losing the trust of so much of the population. They do not believe what we say because we constantly present them with fear, which is not good.
The Health Secretary spoke earlier about having to be careful in what he said in case he further damaged the British economy. He did not want to talk down the economy, which I understand, but I hope that that does not mean that the Conservative Government will refuse to be positive about the benefits of migration. The people who come to this country to work in our NHS and in other services provide a huge economic benefit to the UK as a whole and Scotland in particular. It is important to our country’s economy that people are willing to come here. If the Government are scared about damaging the economy and their ability to use people as bargaining chips and are unwilling to talk about the benefits to the British economy of migration, that is a major issue. Things are bad enough already; we do not want to make them any worse.
I want to mention a few other things that people have said. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said that people would value NHS services more if they had to pay for them. He then said that the £350 million should go to the NHS. Those two things are mutually incompatible. It is a shame that such points were not highlighted a bit more during the campaign.
So many Westminster Governments over so many years, and indeed decades, have been unwilling to do anything other than take part in short-term politics, focusing on what will be of benefit in the next five years in order to try to win elections. The NHS is a prime example, because some of the health measures put in place by the Conservative Government avoid touching on some of the thorniest issues. For example, breast feeding counselling and support, access to which is being reduced, costs money now but will result in a financial benefit—a return to the Treasury—many years later. It would be good if the Government were willing to take such decisions, which may mean they have a smaller budget now, in order to give people health benefits in 20 years’ time.
Earlier this week we had the main debate on the estimates. NHS and health budgets regularly go against HM Treasury guidance by transferring capital to revenue spend, which other Departments are not allowed to do. What I want to know is why that money is not being spent on capital projects. What capital projects on which the money should be spent are being avoided? Why are the Government not funding the NHS revenue spend to the levels they should be? Why does the NHS have to make these transfers between capital and revenue, rather than being adequately funded?
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak in this debate. I really appreciate it.

Karin Smyth: The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has published seven reports since January on the workings of the Department of Health, including on diabetes, the cancer drugs fund, services for people with neurological conditions, access to GP services, acute hospital trusts, NHS clinical staff and personal budgets in social care. We have had two further hearings, for reports yet to be published, on discharging older people from hospital and specialised services.
I recommend those reports to those on the Government Front Bench—I have a few copies with me, just in case they do not wish to watch the football tonight. Taken together, they paint a bleak picture of a system under immense pressure, with commitments undelivered, a massive increase in complexity as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and, above all for the Public Accounts Committee, continuing poor data upon which to make decisions and manage performance, as well as a complete lack of clarity about accountability for delivery on the areas we have investigated.
The concerns outlined in our reports include: on staffing, that trusts have been set unrealistic efficiency targets, and that the shortage of nurses is expected to continue for the next three years; on funding, that the financial performance of trusts has deteriorated sharply, and that this trend is not sustainable; and that the data used to estimate trusts’ potential cost savings targets are seriously flawed.

Melanie Onn: Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust has only just been taken out of special measures, but last week’s Care Quality Commission report highlights a concerning dip in standards at Diana, Princess of Wales hospital. The bosses have said that that is because they struggled to recruit quality staff. Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the NHS nursing bursary is long-term pain for short-term gain?

Karin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, one of the reports I have with me is the one we published in December about the work of the Care Quality Commission and some of the concerns that have already been issued about the work it does to uncover issues such as the ones she has highlighted in her constituency.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are now a worrying number of trusts in deficit, whereas 10 years ago they  were simply bubbling along well—in fact, they were getting more money for their budgets? Even for North Middlesex hospital, which we have heard about extensively tonight, the situation is increasingly worrying, as it is now in deficit for the first time in 10 years.

Karin Smyth: I agree and I will talk about some of the issues with trusts.
Hon. Members have provided examples that highlight our concerns about how the Department is managing to do what Parliament intended with the funds voted to it. They highlight the importance of giving the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament the opportunity to review the departmental accounts properly.
The Department of Health annual accounts cover more than 20 arm’s-length bodies and delivery partners, not only NHS England, but the Care Quality Commission, NHS Improvement, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Human Tissue Authority, Health Education England, the NHS Litigation Authority and—one of my and, I am sure, many hon. Members’ favourite organisations—NHS Property Services Ltd.
Within NHS England, NHS trusts reported a record deficit of £2.45 billion in 2015-16—almost £500 million worse than planned, and triple the size of the 2014-15 deficit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, a record 121 out of 138 acute trusts ended 2015-16 in deficit. Analysis by the King’s Fund and the Health Foundation has challenged the Secretary of State’s claim that, in the 2016-17 Budget, the NHS will receive the sixth biggest funding increase in its history. The chief economist at the King’s Fund concluded that this year’s total real spend increase of 1.6% is the 28th largest increase since 1975-76.
The Health Foundation noted:
“The health budget has been protected from cuts but spending growth is substantially below the growing pressures on the service…In exchange for this protection, the NHS has been asked to absorb these pressures through improved efficiency. There are opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the NHS but realising these savings is proving to be a huge challenge—particularly against a backdrop of staffing shortage.”
Given the size of the trust deficit and the implications for the budget of NHS England, which takes up by far the greatest part of the Department’s budget, there are widespread concerns about how the Department might stay within its departmental expenditure limit. Failure to do so would be an exceptional breach of control. As my friend, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, there are issues about the way in which capital has been transferred to revenue and so on.
The Public Accounts Committee understands that the accounts will be available before the recess—perhaps next week, which would be very welcome. We need to look not only at NHS England’s spend, but that of the other 20 or so bodies that make up the Department of Health. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Parliament will take a dim view if the Department’s accounts are not subject to proper scrutiny when the Committee, which had some additional training this year to review the accounts, is ready to undertake such scrutiny.
In addition to my concerns about last year’s accounts and this year’s departmental budget, I believe that Brexit now poses huge risks. My major concerns are about staffing, procurement and medicines, but there  are many others. In my NHS career as a non-executive director on a trust board and as a manager, I read and indeed compiled many a risk register. It is truly a joyful task. The Department requires all its bodies to identify, assess and mitigate risks. As anyone in any business knows, risk registers are an essential part of the planning process. Few if any risks to business could be greater than Brexit. I would expect the Department to have a robust Department-wide risk assessment process, and I would expect it to include Brexit.
Yesterday at Health questions, I asked what was being done across the Department, including the NHS, to assess and mitigate the risks to its current year budget of Brexit’s huge impact on staffing, procurement and medicines. I received a far from satisfactory reply—although he tried to be helpful—from the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences. I therefore pose three key questions to Ministers: what are the risks of Brexit that the Department must surely have already identified through its risk register or by other means? How are they to be mitigated? When will they be debated and discussed in Parliament?

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). I will be unashamedly parochial and pursue the point that I made in an intervention on the Secretary of State about the future finances of the Harrow clinical commissioning group and the London North West Healthcare NHS Trust. It includes Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents. I should declare an interest in that I have been operated on and indeed members of my family have been born at Northwick Park hospital, with which I therefore have a particular affinity, as do my constituents.

Joan Ryan: My hon. Friend is right to remain parochial and focused on his hospital. One of the scandals of North Middlesex is that all the local MPs have been kept in the dark about all the serious faults that were known to the hospital and to NHS officials. None of that was shared with the local MPs.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend made a very powerful speech about North Middlesex hospital. I am pleased to say that I have a positive relationship with the managers at North West London Hospitals Trust as they have always made themselves open and available to answer my questions. I hope that they will read Hansard and see my right hon. Friend’s warning in relation to the difficulties that she has had with previous managers at North Middlesex hospital and will do even more to provide transparency in our area.
Let me talk now about my concerns about the finances at Northwick Park. Back in 2014-15, North West London Hospitals Trust had a deficit of some £55.9 million. That had risen to £100 million by the beginning of this financial year. The trust management board is optimistic that it can get that deficit down over the course of the next financial year to just over £88 million, which is an enormous sum in its own right and will, if that figure is achieved, still be without question one of the biggest deficits in the NHS in England. To achieve that target, it has committed to axe 140 posts. My concern, and the concern of many of my constituents, is that services at Northwick Park and indeed in other parts of the trust will be affected despite the intentions of the management.
The situation at Northwick Park has been compounded by the decision to close a number of accident and emergency departments in north-west London in recent years. In particular, the decision to close Central Middlesex hospital has undoubtedly had an impact, increasing the pressure on the services at Northwick Park hospital. Although it was great to see some new investment at Northwick Park—we now have an upgraded accident and emergency department—no extra beds were created in the hospital, which is a major concern.
I recognise that time is a concern, so let me underline my last point, which is about the funding of Harrow clinical commissioning group. In the past three years for which parliamentary figures were available, it has received the lowest funding of any London CCG. The Secretary of State was very generous in offering to go away and review that situation. I ask the Minister who is due to reply to this debate whether he would be willing to receive a deputation of local general practitioners and me to discuss the funding of Harrow CCG, which is one of the causes of the difficult financial situation at Northwick Park hospital that serves my constituents.

Justin Madders: In what has been a hugely significant day in a monumentally significant fortnight, we have been discussing issues that are also of huge significance, but I fear that the contributions will be lost amid the historic nature of the events are currently engulfing this place and the whole country.
Let me turn now to the contributions to this debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) rightly highlighted the uncertainty now facing our staff who have come from the EU. There is also a very real fear that agency costs will go through the roof as a result of the decision that has been made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) spoke with graphic clarity about the problems that a lack of funding has caused the health services in her own constituency. She also pointed to the promises to protect local services that have not been honoured. She talked about the scandal of junior doctors left unsupervised in the North Middlesex hospital A&E. I know that she has a debate in Westminster Hall on that issue next week, and I am sure that some of the matters that have been raised today will get a further examination then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who, as my predecessor in this shadow role, has great knowledge of this area, spoke passionately about the challenges that his community faces in delivering an effective health economy. He is right to be concerned that the Success Regime could indeed turn out to be a Trojan horse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) gave a personal and troubling story about a recent case involving one of her constituents. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that all of us as politicians will have to work much harder to restore and retain trust in what we say. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke with the benefit of her own great experience of the NHS and her more recent experiences as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the many critical reports it has written. I assure her that I have already considered many of them, so I trust I have her permission to watch the football later.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) spoke with great authority about the difficulties of his own local NHS trust. I think every Member who has spoken tonight has mentioned challenges in their own constituency, but more significant is the fact that every Member who has spoken tonight said that at least some of their constituents voted to leave the EU because they thought it would mean more money for the NHS.
Those are the Members who have spoken. Who have we not heard from? The right hon. and hon. Members who have spent the last few months spearheading the campaign up and down the country claiming that there was £350 million a week just sitting there, ready to be spent on the NHS. Where are they now? Could it be that because it was a promise that could never be kept and should never have been made, we have seen a collective abrogation of responsibility by people who, frankly, should know better? Make no mistake: those who have associated themselves with such claims will be expected to account for their actions, but let us not allow those wild statements to distract us from the crisis in the NHS caused by this Government.
The challenges we already face in the finances, quality of care and the workforce put the NHS in a precarious position, but be in no doubt: those challenges were there before we voted to leave the EU. It has been clear for some time that the NHS does not have the resources needed to deliver the services that people expect. Only this week, we have heard where the Government’s priorities appear to be, with the Chancellor talking about reducing corporation tax yet again. Is it not interesting that we only hear such extra-parliamentary statements about tax cuts, and not about the extra investment that the NHS patently needs? Indeed, the Chancellor’s last big spending decision on the NHS was to cut £1.1 billion from this year’s capital budget, which came to light only after a study by the House of Commons Library—an approach about as far removed from parading impossible pledges on the side of a bus as I can imagine, but to my mind just as dishonourable.
As we know, the overall deficit in the NHS last year was a record £2.5 billion—a record deficit despite pledges from the Government that the investment needed would be front-loaded now to ensure that the NHS could implement the service transformation needed before the middle years of this Parliament, when the funding increases already announced for the NHS are microscopic. What will the NHS look like a few years down the line if the money that is supposed to be preparing us for the rocky road ahead will in fact be used to plug the black hole in finances left over from the last year? Surely, whatever the implications of the referendum result, the Government must recognise that their existing financial plan for the NHS needs comprehensive re-evaluation.
Only yesterday, we had a report from the Healthcare Financial Management Association that revealed that 22% of the NHS finance directors in hospitals and CCGs surveyed said that quality of care will worsen during this financial year. It does not end there: one in three finance directors fear that care will deteriorate in the next financial year. They warn that waiting times, access to services and the range of services offered are all likely to suffer because of the inadequate funding  settlement. I know the Minister will try to reassure us that plans are in place to put the NHS back on an even keel, but I suggest that he listen to the 67% of CCG finance officers and 48% of trust finance directors who have said that there is a “high degree of risk” associated with achieving their organisation’s financial plans for this year.
In addition, only 16% of finance directors have expressed confidence that NHS organisations in their area will be able to deliver the changes required by their local sustainability and transformation plans. Along with the challenges they anticipate in delivering planned efficiencies, finance directors say that continued high spending on agency staff and inadequate funding of social care are pressures that are not going away. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South mentioned, the Minister will be aware of what the Public Accounts Committee said: that the 4% annual efficiency targets imposed are
“unrealistic and have caused long-term damage”.
None of that will be news to the Minister. It is high time the Government acknowledged that within the current parameters, hard-working NHS staff are being set up to fail.
Across a whole range of indicators, the NHS is experiencing its worst performance since records began, but let me be clear: I do not for a second hold the people who work on the frontline in the NHS responsible for that. Indeed, it is only through their dedication that the health service keeps going, despite the best efforts of the Government to destroy staff morale. Be it the current generation of junior doctors alienated by botched contract discussions, the next generation of nurses deterred from entering the profession by tuition fees, or the thousands of EU nationals working in the NHS who fear for their future in this country, its existing staff, who are at breaking point, see nothing from the Government that gives them confidence that the Government have a clue how to fix this mess.
Let us once and for all nail the myth propounded by Government Members that this Government have been generous in their funding for the NHS. The King’s Fund and the Health Foundation looked into this claim. Despite the oft-repeated mantra that this year’s funding increase is the sixth largest in the NHS’s history, they said:
“We find that…this year it is in fact the 28th largest funding increase since 1975”.
That is the truth. That is the cruel deception at the heart of the Government’s NHS plans.
NHS Providers, the organisation that represents NHS trusts, had this to say about the size of the deficit:
“the combination of increasing demand and the longest and deepest financial squeeze in NHS history is maxing out the health service”.
The fact is that the NHS is halfway through its most austere decade ever. It is getting a smaller increase this year than it got in any single year of the last Labour Government. Since the health service’s creation in 1948, NHS demand and costs have risen by 3.5% to 4% a year, and on average, funding has kept pace. Now funding will rise, on average, by only 0.9% a year between 2010 and 2020. That is a quarter of the historical average, and well below what is needed to provide the same quality of service to a growing, older population.
I return to my opening remarks. It has been a seismic few weeks for this country. Politicians have been exposed as cavalier with the facts, cynical in their actions and irresponsible about the future of this country. Let us not allow that approach to continue to pollute our politics. Let us have the courage to be honest about the challenges that lie ahead. Let us stop the pretence that the NHS can continue to be the service that most of us want it to be within current Government spending limits.
Let us also be clear that the answer is not to emblazon buses with cheap slogans and then run away from those slogans at the first opportunity. Instead, the challenge for all of us in this place who want the next generation to enjoy the same access to the NHS that my generation has taken for granted is to provide a coherent, credible set of policies and then actually deliver them. On that measure, this Government have fundamentally failed. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Ben Gummer: First, may I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate? I did, however, see the contributions of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who set up a powerful case in support of the Opposition’s motion, and of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).
I would not dispute the motion’s central contention. We have just had an enormous public debate—as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made clear, a debate of a magnitude that this nation has not seen for decades. A central claim in that debate—a claim on which the referendum hinged—was that there would be an additional £350 million for the NHS to spend every week, were we to withdraw from the European Union. To be very clear about that claim, it is not one that any Member who supported Vote Leave can run away from. It was emblazoned not just on the bus, but in even more explicit language on a poster, which said:
“Let’s give our NHS the £350 million”—
not “some of” or “a part of”, but “the” £350 million—
“the EU takes every week”.
Members will know my position in this debate. It is not my purpose to revisit the arguments for one side or the other, but Members on both sides of the House, of this great debate and of the referendum campaign have a duty to hold to account the people who made those claims, because the referendum was won partly on the basis of them, and people will expect results.
I would like to put on record the nature of our contribution to the European Union every week, so we can be clear not about the claims, but about the facts. The simple fact is that it is wrong to take one year’s contribution as typical, because our contribution varies from year to year. Over the past four years, our gross contribution has in fact been £313 million a week. If we were to deduct the rebate, which is £69 million a week, and public and private sector receipts, which are a further £108 million a week, our net contribution per week is actually £136 million, worked out on a rolling average from 2010 to 2014. I would therefore suggest to those on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the campaign, that the figure needs to be challenged and challenged again.
Any money that might or might not be coming to the NHS needs to be seen within the framework of that claim. It is important for us at this stage not to move away from the claims made in the great referendum campaign. It is important that we bring the country together, but that does not mean that we should not bring some sort of scrutiny to those claims over the next few years, when the effects of Brexit will be played out and when our constituents will feel those effects in their pockets and in the security of their families, although some will say that that will be to the positive and others to the negative.
In the next few years, we will have to take consistent measures to bring scrutiny to the claims that were made. However, it is not just the money that is important in terms of Brexit. I, too, am concerned that we bring scrutiny to bear on the other issues facing healthcare, whether the regulation of medicines, research funding—universities have expressed real concern about that in just the past couple of days—or workforce supply. In that respect, I would like to reiterate the support that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health expressed for the migrant workers who have come to this country to serve our NHS. Many of them provide skills we cannot provide in our own country, and their dedication to our national health service is equal to that shown by those serving it who were born in this country, and I would like to personally thank them for their contribution and service.
On that issue, I think we can have some agreement across the House. Where I am afraid I part company from Opposition Members, however, is on their comments about the claim that was made by Vote Leave—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made clear, it was also made by Labour Members of Parliament. That claim has not been made by Her Majesty’s Government; nor is it one that can be attached to the Department of Health.
In addition, it has been said that the money released by Brexit, even if it were to materialise, would be backfilling what the Opposition claim to be a deficit in NHS funding. That description could not be further from the truth, and I would advise Opposition Members to look at the OECD’s latest figures, which were released earlier this week. They clearly demonstrate that healthcare funding in this country is now just above the average for the EU15. It has moved up from being below average, and we are now achieving parity with countries such as Spain, which has a fantastic healthcare system that is much admired around the world, and indeed Finland. Given that position, we should surely praise this Government and the previous coalition Government, who protected healthcare funding, even when the Labour party suggested we do the opposite.
In 2010, the Prime Minister said healthcare funding would be protected, even though the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer before the 2010 election suggested it should be cut. Under this Secretary of State and this Prime Minister, NHS spending has undergone its sixth biggest rise in the history of the NHS, despite the fact that we have been contending with the biggest financial crisis this country has faced in its peacetime history since the great depression in the 1930s. The financial environment of the NHS therefore bears positive scrutiny, compared with the situation in other leading countries in the European Union and with the history of Government funding for the NHS. Of that, the Conservative party is justly proud.
That does not mean, however, that there are no pressures within the NHS. I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by hon. Members, which I know they have made earnestly because they care very much for their local health systems. The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is a doughty campaigner for West Cumberland hospital and for healthcare provision in his area, knows that I will meet him again and again—I hope, soon, in Cumbria—to discuss the issues that he has in his locality. We are a receptive ear, but we must always pay attention to clinical advice as it pertains to his local area and not to the political exigencies that might exist. Rightly, we have removed political decision making from the disposition of services. That is precisely why the reconfigurations in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) took place. It is always easy in government to try to make political decisions on matters that should be the preserve of clinicians, but that is the wrong thing to do, because one makes decisions for reasons of political expediency rather than clinical reasons. That is why we rely on the Success Regime in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in the whole of Cumbria, as we do in other parts of the country, to provide a clinical consensus and the arguments for change that local clinicians will wish to see.
The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has an expertise unrivalled in this House in the management of finances at a local area level. She is right to say that Brexit poses particular problems for staffing of NHS and social care services, procurement and medicines. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, she has provided very good criticism of how the NHS has been running its finances, which has not been good enough over the past five, 10 or 15 years—indeed, for many years. This Secretary of State and this team are doing a great deal to correct that. She is right, for instance, to point out that NHS Property Services has not worked as well as it should have done in the past. I hope that in the months and years ahead she will see reforms that give her greater pleasure than dealing with NHS Property Services gave her in her previous role.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) described the problems at his local hospital, as did the right hon. Member for Enfield North in relation to North Middlesex hospital, which I have discussed with her. Both hospitals suffer similar problems to other hospitals on the outside rim of London—discernible  and discrete problems that we are endeavouring to correct and to provide solutions to. I hope that the right hon. Lady has seen, in the movement over the past few days, our determination to sort out the problems at North Middlesex. As the Minister responsible for hospitals, I do not want to leave this job without having given stability and certainty to the hospitals outside London that they have not had for many years.

Gareth Thomas: I intervene merely to underline the request for a meeting with the Minister to discuss the finances of Northwick Park and, crucially, of the clinical commissioning group in my area.

Ben Gummer: Of course I will give the hon. Gentleman a meeting. If the issue is about general practitioners, I will refer him, if he does not mind, to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Community and Social Care. However, I will certainly meet him to discuss finances and hospitals. I will arrange both meetings on behalf of his constituents.
I thank hon. Members for this short but constructive debate. It is the first stage in the necessary scrutiny of the claims that were made by both sides in the EU referendum. We are now going to see, in the months and years ahead, who was right. I hope very much that I and the people on my side were wrong, because if so, it will be easier to deliver the spending commitments made by Vote Leave. I fear not, however, in which case we will have some very difficult years ahead. However, people can be sure that in this Government they have a Secretary of State, a ministerial team, a Prime Minister and a party that will continue to commit the funds that are necessary to the NHS, so that we improve on our position in the European averages. We will continue to fund it better than any previous Government to provide for the ambitious designs for this, our national health service, which we all care so much about.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the Vote Leave group during the EU referendum campaign claimed that an extra £350 million a week could be spent on the NHS in lieu of the UK’s EU membership contribution; further notes that senior figures who campaigned, including the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the Rt hon. Member for Surrey Heath have subsequently distanced themselves from that claim; and calls on the Government to set out proposals for additional NHS funding, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire on 4 July 2016.

Cross-examination of Vulnerable Witnesses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Julian Smith.)

Ann Coffey: Giving evidence can be a daunting process. A courtroom is not a hospitable environment for anyone but a lawyer. For most people, the surroundings are intimidating and the procedures strange. It is even harder for children and other vulnerable witnesses, who struggle with the stress of having to re-live difficult experiences in a room full of strangers.
We have repeatedly heard about vulnerable witnesses being subjected to courtroom trauma at the hands of over-zealous defence lawyers. Last year, a 13-year-old child was accused of lying during the trials of the so-called Banbury sex gang because it was “better to be a victim than a slag”. One young girl I spoke to in the course of preparing the report, “Real Voices: Child Sexual Exploitation in Greater Manchester”, told me that being cross-examined was one of the worst experiences of her life. She said:
“There is not a word to describe how bad it was. It was like one attack after another. One of the barristers was not even asking me questions; he was just shouting at me”.
In cases involving sexual offences in particular, we know that, too often, victims fail to report the incident or to pursue prosecution because they fear facing humiliation in court. In all kinds of cases, the testimony of vulnerable witnesses continues to be undervalued and ignored. Of course, there have been big strides in improving the situation for vulnerable witnesses in recent years, particularly though the use of registered intermediaries and other special measures, but we are still a long way from a situation in which all witnesses can give their best and most accurate evidence, no matter their vulnerabilities.
There is one part of the trial process in which vulnerable witnesses continue to be subjected to unnecessary and unjustifiable distress, namely cross-examination. We all agree that the right of the defendant to a fair trial and a robust defence is absolute and essential. However, research has repeatedly shown that traditional cross-examination techniques are not appropriate for vulnerable witnesses. A study conducted by Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson suggested that at least half of child witnesses do not understand the questions put to them in court—a figure rising to 90% for those under the age of 10. How can these children possibly give their best evidence in these circumstances?
Building a justice system in which no one is disadvantaged is in the interests of everyone, including defendants. It is true that many judges are now trained to intervene when barristers ask questions that are beyond the cognitive ability of witnesses. This is all to the good, but it is not enough. Aggressive and disorientating cross-examination techniques are still widespread, despite repeated judgments from the Court of Appeal that they are not acceptable where vulnerable witnesses are concerned.

Lisa Cameron: It is extremely important that children are able to give good and reliable evidence.  Does the hon. Member agree that, as research indicates that children are suggestible, leading questions should not be used in the court process?

Ann Coffey: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She is quite right. What we want is credible evidence, not evidence extracted by bullying.
The recent spate of high-profile sexual exploitation trials have provided stark examples. One young victim giving evidence in the Telford sex gang trials was repeatedly accused of lying and being naughty, and one barrister even demanded to know whether she repented her sins. Overall, she spent 12 days being cross-examined by a series of defence lawyers. As it stands, judges have no real power to limit the duration of questioning or the number of lawyers who can cross-examine a highly vulnerable witness in court. Practice directions encourage judges to set limits, but despite this judicial practice remains very uneven. That is why the measures in section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 are so important. This section provides for the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses to be filmed at a pre-trial hearing and played to the jury at trial.

Jim Shannon: This is a vital issue, and I am surprised not to see more Members in the Chamber to support the hon. Lady. There is a great need for young children involved in such cases to have parents or family members close by and to be screened off, so that the investigations and the questioning can be done from a distance. Does the hon. Lady agree—perhaps the Minister can touch on this in his reply—that that is something we should be considering? Helping those children to give their evidence clearly and honestly, with the support of their families, has to be the way forward.

Ann Coffey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to look at all the protective measures that we can employ to support vulnerable witnesses, particularly children, to give their best evidence in court. I entirely support that.
The witness need not attend the trial in person, thus avoiding the many pitfalls to pursuing justice that vulnerable witnesses currently face. It must be noted that pre-recorded evidence in the form of a film of a police interview can already be used in lieu of live examination-in-chief for vulnerable witnesses. There is no reason why that should not be extended to cross-examination, when we know that that is the most distressing part of the trial process.
This has all been recognised for decades. In 1989, the committee chaired by Judge Pigot QC recommended that provision be made for vulnerable witnesses to undergo pre-recorded cross-examination ahead of trial. It took 10 years for that to be written into law in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, and still, 17 years on from that moment, the relevant section remains unimplemented. That is despite the fact that victim support services, children’s charities and senior members of the judiciary have repeatedly emphasised the necessity and expedience of a roll-out.
The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has been a tireless advocate for the implementation of section 28. Last Thursday he called, once again, in the other place  for us to bring our court system up to date. He has said before that when section 28 is finally implemented, we will all be
“astounded about what all the fuss was about.”
I am already astounded that it is taking so long.
Of course, a vital step forward was made in April 2014, when pilot schemes were introduced in the Crown courts of Leeds, Liverpool and Kingston-upon-Thames. That was almost universally welcomed, but we are now well beyond the six months that those pilots were intended to last, and the evaluation report has not yet been made public. In “Our Commitment to Victims”, which was published in September 2014, the Government promised the completion of a national roll-out by March 2017, subject to the evaluation report. The clock has been ticking for well over 18 months, and it is unacceptable that vulnerable witnesses across the country should be made to endure further delay.
Since the formal evaluation period ended in October 2014, pre-recorded evidence has continued to be used in the pilot areas, and that is clearly a mark of the pilot’s success. One judge involved in the pilots in Kingston-upon-Thames wrote to me of the marked difference made by the installation of improved IT facilities for playing the evidence to juries. That occurred only after the pilot period ended. I hope that the evaluation report, when it is published, takes full account of these developments.

Alison Thewliss: Is the hon. Lady aware of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which has been in place for a short time in Scotland and which has already taken in some of these provisions? Are there things that could be learned from that process and brought in to help vulnerable witnesses in England?

Ann Coffey: I would be very interested in any evidence from the Scottish courts of the success of pre-recorded cross-examination. It would be very helpful to know a little bit more about that.
Last year I visited the honorary recorder of Liverpool, who informed me that their experience of the section 28 pilot scheme has been characterised not only by vast improvements in the experiences of vulnerable and child witnesses, but by better case management, leading to shorter trials and fewer delays for everyone. I have since spoken to members of the judiciary at each of the pilot courts, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive. His Honour Judge David Aubrey QC made it clear that there has been a cultural shift in the manner of cross-examination, rendering unnecessarily repetitive and aggressive cross-examination a thing of the past. Likewise, her honour Judge Sally Cahill QC told me that implementation of section 28 in Leeds has been a “great success”, enabling
“witnesses to give their best evidence in a way that is as good for them as it can be in an adversarial system”.
They both confirmed that there has been no detrimental effect on the fairness of trials. The Minister will know that such unanimous judicial enthusiasm is unusual, but we have, after all, an exceptional opportunity before us. Her honour Judge Susan Tapping told me that in her view
“national rollout of section 28 could be one of the single most beneficial improvements in delivering justice to some of the most vulnerable in society”.
We should also remember that the benefits of section 28 are not limited only to trials concerning sexual offences or to cases where the witness is the victim of the alleged crime. Section 28 applies to vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in all manner of cases. For instance, one judge involved in the pilot scheme told me that she had recently presided over a very serious armed robbery case where the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime was that of a child who happened to be sitting on a wall nearby and saw the whole thing. The child’s evidence was taken under section 28, and the defendant pleaded guilty a few days after the recording was made.
We often speak of the need to listen to the voices of vulnerable children and vulnerable people in this House, but rarely are we confronted with such a clear opportunity to put that belief into action. Where children and vulnerable individuals can contribute to the administration of justice, they have a right to do so without causing harm to themselves. Facilitating that participation makes everyone safer.
It is clear that in all cases the benefits of section 28 are extensive. I have repeatedly been told that in section 28 pilot cases more defendants are entering early guilty pleas, thus shortening victims’ suffering and, of course, saving police resources and valuable court time. In Leeds, the latest figures suggest that 51% of defendants pleaded guilty prior to the section 28 cross-examination. In normal circumstances, many guilty defendants do not plead guilty at the arraignment stage or until the day of the trial, in the hope that, for example, a witness may not turn up. But where the section 28 procedure is used a guilty defendant will know first that they are faced with a witness giving evidence at a much earlier stage, and secondly, that if they do not plead guilty before the recording of that evidence they will lose much of the credit available to them for doing so. That leads to early guilty pleas, early closure for the victim and huge cost savings, as once the plea is entered no further evidence gathering or case preparation is required.
In those cases where the trial moves forward, proceedings are much more time efficient because it is no longer necessary to wait for the witness to attend court. Pre-recorded evidence means that persistent interruptions—for example, because a vulnerable witness requires breaks in order to cope or to concentrate—can be avoided.
The overall time taken to conduct cross-examination has also been reduced in areas where the pilot scheme is operating. The judiciary has issued a protocol governing section 28 cases, under which there must be a ground rules hearing before the recording of the cross-examination can take place. That means that there is much greater scope for judges to review questions to be put to the vulnerable witness, so irrelevant, inappropriate or repetitious questions can be filtered out well in advance. Although that time saving must be balanced with the time required for such pre-trial hearings, it is reasonable to expect that as advocates become more experienced in the new style of cross-examination there will be less need for judicial correction and hearings will be shorter. That expectation has been borne out in Leeds where, as experience has grown, ground rules hearings in section 28 cases have sometimes been sufficiently dealt with electronically, without the need for extra time in court.
On average, the evidence provided to me indicates that the impact of section 28 is such that trials that were previously taking four to six days are now taking two to four days. That is obviously great news for vulnerable witnesses. It also has a knock-on beneficial effect for all other cases in the lists, by introducing greater flexibility in case management. A roll-out of section 28 could provide a real opportunity to reduce the existing delays in the criminal justice system. In the context of widespread court closures, the Government cannot afford to waste that opportunity.
One reason for hesitation in implementing section 28 has been the apprehension from some parties that vulnerable witnesses would often need to be recalled to attend trial as new evidence emerged, neutering any beneficial effect that the pre-recording of cross-examination might otherwise have. As I am sure the Minister is aware, no evidence suggests that that has in fact been a problem. I have spoken to and corresponded with judges from each pilot area, and between them they could identify just a single case in which a vulnerable witness had to come back for a second cross-examination. Early disclosure of evidence can be ensured through proactive judicial case management, with judges having the power to delay recordings if not everything is prepared. It should be remembered that if re-examination is necessary, it can be dealt with by a pre-recording.
If there must be a retrial for any reason, recorded evidence means there is no danger that a prosecution will collapse simply because a witness is reluctant to repeat the experience of giving evidence. The process of a retrial is also speeded up as a result. For example, a retrial of a section 28 case in Liverpool occurred within a fortnight, as soon as a new jury panel was in place. We can expect similar results where cases involve a number of defendants, requiring the trial to be split. Rather than requiring the witness to attend each trial, their cross-examination can instead be re-played as many times as necessary. That removes the need for vulnerable witnesses to be exposed multiple times to the adversarial process.
As I have said, pre-recorded evidence continues to be taken in three pilot areas, which means that there is now a postcode lottery for vulnerable witnesses. It cannot be right that only a small minority have access to those protective measures. Tens of thousands of children are called to give evidence each year, and they should all have the benefit of section 28. Such a transformation in the national criminal justice system will take time, but given the Government’s commitment to full implementation by March 2017, that decision can no longer be put off. As the Home Affairs Committee emphasised three years ago, section 28 represents the will of Parliament, and it is incumbent on the Ministry of Justice to implement it in a timely manner.
As the Minister will know, I have raised implementation of section 28 in this House, and through written questions, many times—today marks the 10th such occasion since 2013. I know that the Minister shares many of my concerns, and I thank him for the recent meeting that he held with me and Lord Judge on the matter. I look forward to hearing what steps he now intends to take.

Mike Penning: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate.  What she says is no surprise to me, because in our meeting with Lord Judge the other day we discussed this issue in terms of what would be the right thing to do, and I praise her diligent work. She does not give up on these matters; she goes on and on. I also join her in praising Lord Judge—one could argue that he is brilliantly named because of his previous occupation.
Perhaps not many people are in the Chamber because on previous occasions other Ministers have not been able to say what I am about to say. As Minister with responsibility for the criminal justice system as well as for victims, this issue forms part of the package that I will announce in a moment. We seek to make more victims feel safe within the criminal justice system, and I have pledged to the House that we will publish a Green Paper on a victims law before the summer recess—I have worked on that extensively with Her Majesty’s Opposition and other parties in the House.
I have also considered the Scottish system, but our provisions will possibly go a little further, meaning that we can learn from each other. That is always a good thing when trying to protect the most vulnerable people in society. This is not just about children; there are people with mental illnesses and those in other situations—particularly those under pressure—who are vulnerable in other ways, although I know we have been talking particularly about children.
Measures have been introduced over the last few years, and the criminal justice system has moved on enormously. In particular, the attitude of judges and those who deal with criminal law has changed. There are now screens in some courts, but we are not there yet.
It is regrettable—a very polite term for a Minister to use in the House—that section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was not rolled out sooner. I think everybody accepted that it had to be piloted. There was a degree of concern that there might be some cases where vulnerable people were recalled, but, as the hon. Lady said in her very articulate and factual speech, that has happened only once. All the other evidence shows that not only does it make a much better situation for the witness, but it is much better for the criminal justice system. It speeds up the criminal justice system, in particular in the courts, and there are a substantial number of guilty pleas.
There is no need to delay the House massively. As the hon. Lady knows—she met me only a couple of days ago—I agree with nearly everything she says. I have yet to receive full Government clearance. However, I intend to instruct my officials to work with the judges on a roll-out. The roll-out will start by the end of the year. It says in my notes it will start in January, but I think the end of the year would be better. I am sure we would all agree on that. We will start with the roll-out in the Crown courts for those under 18 and for witnesses with mental illness.
This needs to be rolled out. It is wrong to have a situation where my pilots are continuing as pilots when we know just how successful they are. The postcode lottery will end. I am not certain we will reach the full roll-out by March 2017. If I cannot do that, I will come back to the House to explain why that is the case. I have some technicalities within Government procedures to address in the meantime, but I cannot see any reason why we cannot start planning now to work with judges on how we are going to implement it. I spoke about this  extensively with Lord Peter Gross, who has recently stepped down, and his replacement. I think we can go with this. The judges want it. It seems completely logical to me that if I have something new and the judges want it—as the hon. Lady said, that is quite strange—then let us get on and do it.
With that in mind, let us work together across the House to implement section 28 as soon as possible to protect vulnerable witnesses and victims, something we all came to this place to do.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.